Hi all, Last IETF, Thomas expressed some concerns about a MAY support 3041. Notes from the meeting are: Thomas: MAY on privacy extensions is too weak. Should be a SHOULD if you are the type of node to which it applies.
Tony: Shouldn't mention clients servers, etc., as this is too operational. Christian: Agrees that we shouldn't talk about clients and servers, as they are not part of the architecture. However, most discussions on the mailing list have given support to MAY, see Francis' draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dupont-ipv6-rfc3041harmful-01.txt I'm unsure what the way forward would be. Current text is: 4.5.3 RFC3041 - Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-3041] MAY be supported. Currently, there is discussion of the applicability of temporary addresses. Should the MAY remain, with some discussion of why 3041 is good or should it be upgrated to a 'SHOULD be implemented' with reasons why & why not to use it? thanks, 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
