Keith Moore wrote:
> the purpose of a standard is to describe what is necessary for interoperability > and proper functioning of the protocol, not to legitimize existing > implementations. so the installed base shouldn't dictate whether a feature > is a MUST in a new version of a standard unless interoperability with the > installed base is important (it generally is) and imposing the MUST condition > on implementations that conform with the new version of the standard affects > interoperability with the installed base. Agree with all of the above. In this case, there are no interoperability problems. Since draft N-2 Mobile IPv6 has been able to work with IPv6 nodes that have *no* MIPv6 specific code. Again, this is separate from what the IETF may mandate for IPv6 nodes to support. To take a clearly unreasonable example, we could mandate every node to support a 1,000,000 entry bindind cache. Even with such a mandate a node conforming to this requirement would work with a node that has never heard of MIPv6. So, interoperability and must-implement are different in this particular case. I think that's good because we can then decide more freely what to require from all implementations. Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------