Thanks Jari, I agree this text is good. John
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Jari Arkko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 20 November, 2003 13:56 > To: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Issue 29: AD REVIEW: IPv6 Node Requirements > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The 2nd paragraph in 4.6 looks like: > > > > If an application is going to support Source-Specific Multicast, > > it "SHOULD support MLDv2 but MAY support MLDv1 and conform to the > > Source-Specific Multicast overview document [RFC3569]; refer to > > Source-Specific Multicast architecture document for > details [SSMARCH]. > > > > I think that is sufficient strength to address Jean-Jacques concern, > > as SHOULD is quite strong. > > Hmm.... I think RFC 3569 says that you can only do SSM with MLDv2, > not with MLDv1. Also, I wouldn't put an informative document like > 3569 after a keyword. > > We need to put Brian's SHOULD..MAY suggestion into the text, but > in a slightly different form. Here is one suggested rewrite: > > 4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) > > Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2 > [MLDv2]. However, if the node has applications which only need > support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC3569], the node MAY implement > MLDv1 [MLDv1] instead. If the node has applications which need > support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569, SSMARCH], the > node MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2]. > > When MLD is used, the rules in "Source Address Selection for the > Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol" [RFC-3590] MUST be > followed. > > --Jari > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
