On 2005-01-25, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote: > > I think I should have responded during the LC period...sorry for my > poor response. I've checked the latest version, and I basically have > no objection to submitting this document.
Thanks, I was pretty sure you'd be happy since the last version was 99% there ... > I have one additional question specific to the latest version. This > one has a new requirement on SEND in section 3.1: > > * Nodes implementing Optimistic DAD SHOULD additionally implement > Secure Neighbor Discovery [SEND]. > > I don't recall why this was added, but if this is based on a > consensus, I don't oppose to the requirement itself. However, I > believe if we use this wording with the SHOULD, the reference to SEND > must be a normative reference (even though the word "additionally" > might weaken the requirement level). It's just there to address security considerations ... you're right, it should have been upgraded to a normative reference, I missed that. > In any event, this is not a strong opinion. If others think it's okay > to keep it as an informative reference, I can live with that. Also, > even if we agree on changing the reference category, I think we can do > that later with IESG comments. Yep. Thanks for your feedback on this and previous versions! -----Nick -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
