Joel, Ccing your reply to a broader audience. I understand reason A below but with a grain of salt. I know for example, the deprecation of the RH0 header as such a change. So the grain of salt is, I don't recommend the IETF waffle without a formal document that captures the reason for the change. Folks do not remember emails later in future. Does a short Informational note make sense to write by someone who is most vocal here and we take it from there?
Comments? Thanks, Hemant -----Original Message----- From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 6:25 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Subject: Re: Router redirects in Node Requirements document A) The IETF has in the past, and will in the future, change things in ways that make old devices non-compliant. If we find that the old advice was wrong, we change it. B) Would it change your reaction if it were SHOULD NOT be on by default? I happen to think that paying attention to the operators desire for MUST NOT makes sense, but I wanted to better understand what iscausing you concern. Yours, Joel -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
