RFC2460 violation of RFC1122

2012-07-13 Thread Templin, Fred L
Section 5 of RFC2460 states: "In response to an IPv6 packet that is sent to an IPv4 destination (i.e., a packet that undergoes translation from IPv6 to IPv4), the originating IPv6 node may receive an ICMP Packet Too Big message reporting a Next-Hop MTU less than 1280. In that case, th

Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt]

2012-07-13 Thread Simon Perreault
On 07/13/2012 12:00 PM, SM wrote: Hi Simon, At 05:35 13-07-2012, Simon Perreault wrote: Have you heard of Postel's law? I try to be liberal in accepting arguments arguments from by implementers. My proposal stemmed from Dave Thaler's argument... not sure what you're implying. I am conser

Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt]

2012-07-13 Thread SM
Hi Simon, At 05:35 13-07-2012, Simon Perreault wrote: Have you heard of Postel's law? I try to be liberal in accepting arguments arguments from by implementers. I am conservative when it comes to usage of RFC 2119 key words. Regards, -sm --

Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt]

2012-07-13 Thread Simon Perreault
On 07/12/2012 06:34 PM, SM wrote: Hi Simon, At 12:47 12-07-2012, Simon Perreault wrote: Suggestion: On input, applications MUST accept the formal syntax and MAY accept another syntax. On output, applications MUST use the formal syntax and MUST NOT use another syntax. As long as an implementati