>>>>> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 08:50:38 -0500, >>>>> James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> This is more than strictly required for interoperability. > I think that's the key point. It's very important to make sure that > the things marked as "MUST" or "MUST NOT" are actually requirements > for interoperability or anticipated development, and not just needless > strictures. > Otherwise, it becomes much more tedious to support enviroments that > require slightly different values or implementations that trade off > simplicity against precision. FWIW, I agree. I've not assess whether each of the RFC2461(bis) constants can be a source of an interoperability issue, but if it's not, "MUST" or "MUST NOT" is clearly a wrong choice. Although SHOULD (NOT) might help clarify the intent (and I don't oppose to adding it in this case), I'm not sure if it has a real effect; there's always a vendor that misunderstands or even ignores a particular part of a specification even if it's specified as a MUST. So we won't be able to eliminate such abnormal implementations by giving a spec a SHOULD or MUST. We may be able to convince such a vendor of fixing their implementation with the specific keywords, but I personally don't see significant difference for that purpose in this case, with or without an RFC2119 keyword. In any case, I have no strong opinion on whether to add an RFC2119 keyword to 2461bis (as long as it's not an unnecessary MUST). 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------