"Templin, Fred L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think it is good to have this discussion of link quality > on the list to serve as a permanent (?) record for those > developers who might want to implement a default router > selection strategy based on factors not explicitly called > out in the spec.
I guess I don't see how having a minor thread on the topic (and one that doesn't show any deep discussion and or consensus outcome) as making much difference either way. > adding the "etc." could not possibly do any harm, That I agree on! > and could possibly inform developers of the fact that they have some > degrees of freedom in their default router selection strategy (i.e., > it can't hurt and might help). IMO, they have the freedom. And one argument against adding words would be good to make that even more clear is that it might lead others to argue that lack of such words in other contexts implies lack of similar degree of freedom, which I find troubling. > Moreover, it could go as a simple AUTH48 update so I don't think its > fair to draw a parallel between this and the M&O discussions. The parallel in my mind is on over analyzing the words to the point where we are no longer protocol engineers trying to make protocols work well (based in part on just exercising common sense), but essentially lawyers worried about whether a spec explicitely allows or disallows some minor variant from what is explicitely spelled out. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
