Hi Les, Apologies for the delay in responding.
On 13 Dec 2012, at 22:33, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Frankly, I find the discussion of a preference algorithm in selecting the > endpoint address as useful/interesting - but much more appropriate for a > vendor deployment guide than a normative specification. Vendors often are > faced with idiosyncratic deployment constraints from their customers which > need to be accommodated. In which case responsive vendors will provide > various knobs to allow override of default behavior - while retaining the > ease of "zero config" for the majority of customers. This is simply good > business. We should not attempt to "standardize" this. I agree that there are likely to be a variety of requirements, and I am not saying that we need a MUST in this document - but some guidance to implementors on this kind of deployment consideration is always useful from my perspective (some guidance as to what *could* be best practice, tends to result in a higher probability that different vendor's kit actually interoperates with each other). Cheers, r. _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
