Thomas,
> > > I've reviewed this document and on the whole think it's fine for PS. > > > > > > But I do have one general concern. This document requires that an > > > implementation do what in practice, I think might be "difficult" for > > > some implementations. While that is OK at one level, I fear that some > > > implementors will do most of this spec, but not all of it. I wonder if > > > that would be a good outcome. > > BTW, what I meant to say above was more like: > > This document requires that an implementation do things that may > logically (if you follow the conceptual sending model) be hard to > do, because the information needed to do something may not be > available at that point in the algorithm (implementation). I.e., one > ends up having to have access to the ND cache info while doing steps > that (previously) were logically completely separate from the ND > cache. I wonder if in practice, these might be "difficult" for some > implementations. > To be more specific, if I understand your concern correctly, the problem is that the host is required by this to send packets to the router at a time when it does not have the router's link address? jak -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------