Hi Jari. Some quick thoughts.
I'm OK with most of your comments (they are mostly editorial). I personally think the IETF has gotten too formal wanting the word MAY when it ends up being stilted English. But that said, the wording (english) could still be improved as you note. > > For general purpose devices, RFC 4429 is not > > considered to be necessary at this time. > Hmm. I'd argue that moving and sleeping/waking nodes is perhaps more the > norm than exception today. At the very least, I'd again use the MAY > keyword for this specification. The above sounds almost like > recommending to not implement it. Just how much time does 4429 shave of the restarting of a device? not much I think. Couple of seconds? In reality, devices that are sleeping/waking take more than that to restore their state ... Also, just who has implemented 4429? Do we actually have real experience with it? > (And based on my own experience of running non-IPv4 networks that > desperately need DNS discovery, somewhere in Section 7 I think you > should require that routers with attached hosts actually support both > (stateless) DHCP and RA-based DNS discovery.) The trouble with routers being required to implement stateless is that they don't need to. You can have one DHC server for an entire site, with relay agents relaying packets to it... Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
