>>>>> On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:46:06 -0400,
>>>>> Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> If we respect both the original sense of RFC2462 and our consensus
>> about the semantics separation of the M/O flags, I believe the right
>> solution is the following:
> I think we should be careful NOT to get hung up on what the original
> intent of the M/O bits were, but focus on what the right behavior
> should be, given what we know now/today, and given the DHC protocols
> we actually have.
In general, I agree (if I sound self-conflicting, note the "If" in the
cited part above). In practice, however, it should also be noted that
one major push back argument in the similar discussion for rfc2462bis
a year ago was that we should not introduce incompatible changes to
existing implementations that assume the "original intent".
It seems to me that this is a typical case of tradeoff between "it's
never too late to do the right thing" vs "don't break compatibility".
In the previous discussion, the latter was preferred, and so we are
here. If we can now prefer the former argument, I'm personally
willing to take it.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
