Subject: Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Date: Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 04:53:43PM +0200 Quoting Pekka Savola ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> <snip> I guess the question is about whether we want to
> encourage adding that support, or documenting existing, well-known
> practice for new implementations. If we put EDNS0 as a SHOULD, we'd
> probably be doing the former .. which is OK by me as long as we're
> doing a conscious decision on that (but my personal take is that we
> should stick to "known good, implemented, works" -mantra in a document
> like this).
We know that EDNS0 works. Mark did a good description of the present
state. I see nothing to the contrary. It is A Good Thing to endorse
EDNS0 in a document like this, because it could speed up deployment.
--
Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC
MN1334-RIPE
Now I think I just reached the state of HYPERTENSION that comes JUST
BEFORE you see the TOTAL at the SAFEWAY CHECKOUT COUNTER!
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
