Hi Adrian, I've got your point.
As I already replied to Brian, the document will be modified to avoid any 2119 language. ciao Luigi On 31 Aug. 2012, at 20:32 , Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Just cutting to the discussion of routing... > >>>> The only suggestion I would make for this document is to drop the >>>> use of the 2119 language. It is only used in a few places and those >>>> uses are not really appropriate for 2119 language. I would suggest >>>> re-writing those guidelines with normal prose and drop the 2119 >>>> boilerplate from the document. >> >> We tried not to use so much the 2119 language, but if you think it is better > to >> drop it completely, this can be done. >> >> But, what do you think about section 8 "Routing Consideration" ? There, with >> 2119 language, we recommend that routers that do not support LISP do not >> handle the prefix in any special way. WOuldn't be better to maintain that > part? > > I am not sure that this document can mandate the behavior of routers that > don't > support this document. So the use of must/should language in upper or lower > case > seem inappropriate. > > Normally what we do is say: "Implementations that are not aware of this > special > feature will carry on processing as defined in [RFCfoo] with the following > results..." > > Thanks, > Adrian > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
