On Friday, October 30, 2015, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > STARK, BARBARA H <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> SHOULD is actually pretty strong. It doesn't mean, "implement if > you > >> like" (that's MAY). It means, implement it, unless you have a > serious > >> reason why you can't. > >> > >> For instance, an IPv6 only IoT gateway probably has no interest in > >> IPv4 if it can get IPv6. MUST would make that gateway > non-compliant. > > > Maybe conditionally mandatory? If the router can be used for routing > > That's what SHOULD is *for* > If you are concerned it won't get implemented, then any weasel room you > leave > will be exploited. At that point, the market gets to decide. > > > Agreed on SHOULD MUST unduly enshrines IPv4 and ... NAT > -- > Michael Richardson > -on the road- > > >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
