On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:57:25AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > i think "MAY" is fine. > > Agree. > > > conditions where the spec is appropriate > > are spelled out enough in RFC3041. > > Actually, they definitely *aren't* (or rather, they give a wrong > impression), see draft-dupont-ipv6-rfc3041harmful-01.txt -- new security > considerations / applicability consideration is needed.
I agree with Pekka. Regarding the node requirements themselves, I feel the main use of the draft is a collection of pointers to guide implementors to the rfcs they should refer to when developing ipv6 nodes. Thus I don't think any policies/etc should be made here, but pointed to in the relevant rfcs. (For example the suggestion of "cutting and pasting" policy from rfc3041 into this doc doesn't weem right to me - keep the original docs authoritative, and, as Pekka suggests, review these where necessary in light of experience). tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
