> 4.3.1 Path MTU Discovery - RFC1981
>
> Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] MAY be supported.
I don't propose to change this, for reasons that were discussed
earlier. But I do wonder if we shouldn't qualify it slightly,
since we would hope to see the majority of nodes supporting
MTU discovery. Could we add a sentence saying something like
It is expected that most implementations will indeed support
this, although the possible exception cases are sufficient
that the used of "SHOULD" is not justified.
Otherwise, some implementors might use the MAY as an easy way out.
Brian
Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the
> following document as an Informational RFC:
>
> Title : IPv6 Node Requirements
> Author(s) : J. Loughney
> Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-04.txt
> Pages : 20
> Date : 2003-6-30
>
> Please send substantive comments to the ipng mailing list, and minor
> editorial comments to the authors. This last call period will end on 15
> July 2003.
>
> Bob Hinden / Margaret Wasserman
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
