Hi Ted,
At 10:44 23-06-2014, Ted Lemon wrote:
Fair enough. Do you think the text as written will create
interoperability problems?
I would say avoid that type of phrasing as it may lead to problems.
At 10:45 23-06-2014, Julien Laganier wrote:
How about this:
"Router software MUST NOT include any special handling code for
ORCHIDs. In other words, the non-routability property of ORCHIDs, if
implemented, is to be implemented via configuration rather than by
hardwired software code. At this time, it is RECOMMENDED that the
default router configuration not handle ORCHIDs in any special way.
In other words, there is no need to touch existing or new routers due
to ORCHIDs. If such a reason should later appear, for example, due
to a faulty implementation leaking ORCHIDs to the IP layer, the
prefix can be and should be blocked by a simple configuration rule such as,
e.g., an Access Control List entry."
The first two sentences look fine. I suggest trying to look at the
"recommendation" part as something after the document is
published. I am not thinking clearly enough to suggest text. :-( I
would avoid the "should" in the last sentence.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
