, 2006 1:19 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter; Thomas Narten
> Cc: Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden; William Allen Simpson; General Area
> Review Team; Erik Nordmark; ipv6@ietf.org; Soliman,Hesham
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Re: gen-art review of
> draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt
>
> Yeah. I have
Yeah. I have to agree with James and Brian: in retrospect, the M/O bits are
useless and further discussion at this point is even more useless.
- Ralph
On 11/29/06 4:58 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The M&O bits were
>> defined long before we had DHCPv6 in place.
>
> An
The M&O bits were
defined long before we had DHCPv6 in place.
And they were discussed to death in the WG before the draft reached
WG consensus. I'm not inclined to reopen that discussion.
(Somebody added ietf@ietf.org to this thread. I have removed it.)
Brian
__
I only have one question left. Are anycast addresses taken from a
special pool? I didn't think so. Is it possible for me to first be
told about a prefix by router A, and then an anycast address that is
within that prefix by router B? Since anycast addresses have the
override flag set to 0, what
Jari Arkko wrote:
...
(As a point of formality, I'm NOT requiring the
authors or the WG to add the explanations
for this particular spec unless they want to.
I would like to see the other issues addressed/
discussed from the review, though. It would
be great if you could converge that part of the
I have pretty much the same view as Brian has
below. Indeed, explanation of SHOULDs is often
very useful. For instance, we have seen many
cases where IPv6 or some other technology
is misapplied by folks who interpret SHOULDs
without complete understanding of what the
implications are.
However, ad
turday, November 25, 2006 10:07 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thomas Narten; Brian Haberman; William Allen
> Simpson; Soliman, Hesham; General Area Review Team; Erik Nordmark; Jari
> Arkko; Mark Townsley
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] RE: gen-art review of
On 11/25/2006 12:01 PM, Hesham Soliman allegedly wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> Are you referring to comments other than the "SHOULD" issue? I responded to
> all of your comments in my first email. If there is anything unclear please
> let us know.
>
> Hesham
OK. I'll take it offline for the moment.
Thanks, Brian. That's the sort of thing I was hoping to see. If the
principles ever have time I am still curious about the technical
questions in the review (which the SHOULD brouhaha buried).
swb
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1
A couple of thoughts here.
1. It is true that both Gen-ART and the IESG have probably been
looking more critically at SHOULDs. I personally believe that some
SHOULDs are fine without any qualification (i.e. the default words
in 2119 are sufficient guidance) and others need supporting text.
For ex
On 11/22/2006 15:46 PM, Bob Hinden allegedly wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> This document is being recycled at Draft standard. It has been
> previously reviewed, IESG approved, RFC-Editor edited, and published at
> Proposed and Draft Standard. It is very widely deployed. Any issues
> regarding the mea
Bob Hinden wrote:
Gentlemen,
This document is being recycled at Draft standard. It has been
previously reviewed, IESG approved, RFC-Editor edited, and published
at Proposed and Draft Standard. It is very widely deployed. Any
issues regarding the meaning of SHOULD, MUST, etc. have been alre
Gentlemen,
This document is being recycled at Draft standard. It has been
previously reviewed, IESG approved, RFC-Editor edited, and published
at Proposed and Draft Standard. It is very widely deployed. Any
issues regarding the meaning of SHOULD, MUST, etc. have been already
dealt with
On 11/22/2006 09:34 AM, Soliman, Hesham allegedly wrote:
> => Ok, but my other point is that you only use MUST when avoiding it
> causes the protocol to break. So, a SHOULD is used when something is
> recommended, but its lack would not break the protocol. Now, that
> doesn't mean you have to expla
, 2006 1:05 AM
> To: Soliman, Hesham
> Cc: General Area Review Team; Jari Arkko; Mark Townsley; Bob
> Hinden; Brian Haberman; Thomas Narten; Erik Nordmark;
> William Allen Simpson
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] RE: gen-art review of
> draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt
>
> Hi
Hi Spencer,
> It's not that specifications need to explain all possible
> reasons for not
> following a SHOULD - I agree with your statement that
> successful protocols
> are used in amazing ways - but I do think listing ONE
> possible reason as
> justification for a SHOULD instead
On 11/22/2006 09:04 AM, Spencer Dawkins allegedly wrote:
> It's not that specifications need to explain all possible reasons for
> not following a SHOULD - I agree with your statement that successful
> protocols are used in amazing ways - but I do think listing ONE possible
> reason as justificatio
Hi, Hesham,
(dropping off several of the mailing lists from the CC line)
I'm not involved in this discussion, except that I'm also a Gen-ART
reviewer, so wanted to respond to the discussion of SHOULDs in this
thread...
It's not that specifications need to explain all possible reasons for not
18 matches
Mail list logo
