Hi Jinmei,
(B
(B> BTW: do we really need this level of detailed inspection to meet the
(B> two-implementation requirement for a DS? When I raised a similar
(B> question when we discussed how we should deal with the M/O flags in
(B> rfc2462bis wrt this requirement, I was told that we usually only
(B> require a rougher level (e.g. whether there are more than two
(B> implementations that support NS/NA/RA/RS/Redirect messages without
(B> requiring line-by-line conformance to the corresponding RFC). I
(B> personally prefer detailed inspection (if we can do that within a
(B> reasonable period), but I can live with the rougher version as a
(B> real-world compromise. In any case, we should basically be consistent
(B> on the requirement level not to make a double-standard.
(B
(BI agree with you on this. As someone already has mentioned one implementation,
(Bremoving the text would be dangerous. If we really wanted to remove it,
(Bwe should make a thorough search, via some other forums, to check, since
(Bthere are a lot of implementors not on this mailing list.
(B
(BJohn
(B
(B--------------------------------------------------------------------
(BIETF IPv6 working group mailing list
(Bipv6@ietf.org
(BAdministrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
(B--------------------------------------------------------------------
