Danny McPherson wrote: > > On Jul 25, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: > >> >> Please also give us feedback on whether or not this document should be >> published, and on what track. I am considering the Standards Track, >> shepherded directly by either me or Jari. > > > I also believe Standards Track is appropriate. > > I do have a couple of comments rather random comments > for the Alia and the rest of the authors. > > -danny > > ------- > Section 4.1: Interface Role Value 2-3 : "Undefined by this memo and > to be assigned by IANA" I think you mean "Reserved"? > > Bits 4 & 5 of the Interface Information Object you say they MUST > be set to zero. Why not SHOULD be, this will provide more flexibility > with deployment of new functions that might employ those bits?
MUST is the directive to implementers of this specification, and is appropriate (I didn't check, but presumably it is paired with "MUST be ignored on receipt"). Future specifications can set it to a different value and 'not ignore' it. SHOULD would allow implementers to change the value under the current spec, which would render the field useless to future specs. Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
