> I think that deprecating the O & M bits will be good.
> I'm not too worried about incompatibility, as most code
> do not support those bits anyway.
=> I'm sorry, "most" is not good enough. If there is one implementation
that supports it then we have _no_ right to do this. This is not the
intention
of the revision. We don't know what every implementation does and we
can't just keep playing around with specs forever.
> In terms of harm, I think leaving O & M is harmful, as it keeps
> confusing people.
=> Instead of removing them and writing another BCP, I have an alternative:
isn't it easier to clarify the confusion in the text? this is already done in
2461bis.
If we don't start taking IPv6 DSs seriously no one else will.
Hesham
========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact
the sender and delete all copies.
========================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
