[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > we are not arguing for SHOULD for HAO just because of conformance > (or because "old KAME installations become non-conformant").
good. > we are arguing because we believe MUST for HAO has no technical > requirement (only political), thats not fair. we gave enough technical arguments. > imposes incompatible requirement against > existing documents (2460), and as a result will slow down MIP6 > standardization process. i expect AD/IESG pushback if MIP6 gets > submitted with MUST for HAO, and IESG review takes forever due to the > backlogs they have. you will really want to avoid IESG review > roundtrip. that is something I cant control. Vijay -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
