An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer
specifications. Which link-layer specifications are included will depend upon what link-layers are supported by the hardware
available on the system. It is possible for a conformant IPv6
node to support IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on others.
<JAL> proposed text is good.
Yes.
The capability of being a final destination MUST be supported, whereas the capability of being an intermediate destination MAY be supported (i.e. - host functionality vs. router functionality).
Is there a reason for this particular wording? "Intermediate destination" is not a term that I'm familiar with. Perhaps
this could be better said: "All conformant IPv6 implementations
MUST be capable of sending and receving IPv6 packets; forwarding
functionality MAY be supported"? Or are you trying to say more
here?
<JAL> proposed text is good.
Yes.
4.5 Addressing
Currently, there is discussion on support for site-local addressing.
Either say more or leave this out? When published as an RFC, this document will live long term, so the word "currently" is a bit vague. Since we are deprecating site-local, I think that you could just omit any mention of it.
<JAL> proposal is good.
Right.
4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710
If an application is going to join any-source multicast group addresses, it SHOULD implement MLDv1. When MLD is used, the rules in "Source Address Selection for the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol" [RFC-3590] MUST be followed.
If I understand correctly, these nodes could support either MLDv1 or MLDv2.
The document already allows either MLDv1 or MLDv2 to be used. And yes, MLDv2 is backwards compatible to MLDv1 as John pointed out.
Perhaps the only question that I have left is... whether IPv6 nodes should support MLDv2 instead of MLDv1. The node requirements document and the MLDv2 draft intro gives the impression that the only difference is source-specific filtering. Then the current node reqs rules make sense. But Appendix B of the MLDv2 draft seems to list a number of other modifications, including some enhancements to robustness. Are these important? I'm not an expert enough to determine that.
5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC3315
I think that you should be explicit, throughout this section, that you are talking about DHCPv6. In other words, replace all occurances of DHCP with DHCPv6. It is possible that nodes may implement DHCP(v4), but not DHCPv6.
<JAL> Thought that would go without saying, but I'll be explicit noone gets confused.
Yes, DHCPv6 is better because we don't want to appear to be saying anything about IPv4...
--Jari
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
