> Also, I think we should revisit this text in the RFC2462bis > effort. Changing the MUST to MAY in the 5.5.2 paragraph looks like the > right change to me, but that's a different email thread.
I would agree with that. In any case, I object to tying a MUST condition to the availability of the code in the implementation. Implementation is a necessary condition, but so is for example user or admin consent, maybe battery state, whatever. The text should not speak about implementation. -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
