On Aug 2, 2005, at 5:27 PM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
At the very bottom line, my understanding is that we can accept some level of extensions to the current protocol...is that correct?
Yes, I think that's correct. The one extension I heard proposed, which made stateless DHCP more compatible with stateful, seemed pretty low-impact. So I think it's okay.
As for the MUST vs. SHOULD issue (item 3), I think it should be a SHOULD, not a MUST. I think that there are environments (e.g., possibly cell phone) where it should be a MUST, but that is something that should be dealt with in the standards bodies that talk about cell phones, not in the IETF.
There was also some question in the past of what to do when the M and O bits *change* between router advertisements. I can't remember who brought it up. I don't recall seeing any resolution to this. While secure RA sounds really neat, I suspect it will not be widely usable on networks where ad-hoc connection is the norm (e.g., SOHO and WiFi hotspots). If my gut feeling on this is correct, then how we deal with the case where we get an RA with bad information really is important. If a bad RA kills my IP connectivity, that's a big problem.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
