John, I would prefer all requirements for me to implement are in the specs as a programmer. I view node reqs doc as a statement of further reqs of the std regarding conformance not implementation. If we don't want HAO to be MUST make it a SHOULD this should be decided in the MIPv6 spec.k
thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 8:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Re: HAO and BE processing will be mandated > > > Hi Mike, > > > Vijay Devarapalli writes: > > > RO is a SHOULD, it is not a MUST in the current draft. we were > > > not talking about route optimization. we were talking about > > > processing a HAO. in the current spec HAO MUST be processed but > > > not accepted if it cant be verified. verification can be in the > > > form of checking for a valid BCE (created securely), IPsec > > > protected data session, same trusted domain (where you dont > > > expect people to do reflection attacks), the tagging proposal > > > from Rajeev and Charlie, smart ingress filtering from Francis > > > Dupont, etc... > > > > Oh, OK. Sorry about that. Still if the code > > isn't in the CN, the MN should still be able > > to operate correctly, right? That still seems > > to me to be a SHOULD rather than a MUST for the > > same reasons in my reply to John. > > > > I guess the long and short of this is that I'm > > somewhat skeptical of putting general node > > requirements in the MIP draft since it's > > probably not the first place one would be > > looking to figure out if they were an IPv6 > > compliant node. If it's really, really vital > > for the health of the net, yadda, yadda, it > > would be better to put it in a general v6 node > > requirements RFC, don't you think? > > Just as an FYI, I replied to the earlier mail because I am > trying to sort this out for the node requirements. I think > that in MIPv6, it is OK that MIPv6 makes this recommendation (given > working group consensus, IESG approval, etc.) but the Node > Requirements > document is the final word on the issue (assuming WG consensus, > IESG approval, etc.). > > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
