I agree with Itojun. Lets leave this alone it is very CLEAR to me as implementer completely. We should not add new words to these specs unless an implementation is broken or not clear. I have heard no complaints per implementation and this has been tested well via TAHI, UNH, and the IPv6 Logo. All get it.
Thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino > Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 11:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [psg.com #245] Mixed host/router behavior > > > > > i'm for simple "router or host" in document, and leave > > > > per-interface > > > > "router" as a exercise for reader ("virtual router" > > > > concept is not new > > > > so vendors will make such device anyways). > > > > > > => The issue at hand is that the doc is not clear on > nodes that are > > > both hosts and routers. Do you see any harm in making the > definition > > > per interface? > > > > yes. i see a big harm and disambiguity introduced by > the change. > > again, keep the document simple, and let vendors do > funny/complex > > things if they want to. > > s/disambiguity/ambiguity/ > > itojun > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
