Hi Michael, > > then I see no reason for the MUST. > > Sez RFC 2119: > > 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives > > Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care > and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is > actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has > potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For > example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method > on implementors where the method is not required for > interoperability. > > Given that MIPv6 will interoperate without binding > code in CN's, it looks pretty much like a SHOULD > to me. Indeed, the protocol would not be robust if > it didn't consider the case of a non-conformant CN.
I think we want to ask is, is it the right thing to do? For proper protocol functioning, will this lead to the correct behavior. If we think it is important, the MUST is OK. The spec does contain a mechanism to support existing implementations of IPv6, which means the protocol designers are doing their jobs. As I see it, we should focus on the behavior & if it is the right thing to do, then we should do it. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
