On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:28 PM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com>wrote:
> * I still vote for clear language without taking care of the current > implementations: since the aim is to convey one single option enclosing only > one name; then the client and the sever behaviours should be provided > accordingly (i.e., use of "must" instead of the "should"). > Thank you, I will wait a bit and see how Ted responds before making any changes. For the moment we have what is hopefully a compromise between a two-person consensus. * I see your point about the multi-interface text. This is fair. I would > just add a sentence like: > > "Means to bind a FQDN_NAME configuration to a given interface in a MIFed > device are out of scope of this document." > I think that's appropriate, I'll integrate this. -- David W. Hankins SRE Google, Inc.
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
