Subject: Section 4.2.1 - draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-00.txt

From: "Adam Machalek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:04:45 -0500

John,

In section 4.2.1 on RFC2461, you repeat that Router Discovery is
Unconditionally manatory twice.

Also, I'd like to understand why the ability to disable Router Discovery is
marked as a SHOULD instead of a MAY.  I don't recall anything in 2461 that
calls this out.

With the way I do things, making this a SHOULD in this type of document
pretty much means I'm going to have to add and document yet another
configuration toggle, one that I personally don't see any value to (at
least for the type of equipment we are producing).  Making this a MAY
allows those vendors who see this as a requirment to go ahead and implement
this, while giving other vendors who see no such requirement the option to
leave it out.

Adam Machalek

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:08:35 +0300 (EEST)

> this, while giving other vendors who see no such requirement the option to

You apparently consider SHOULD as almost a MUST.

I support SHOULD in this case; it's meant for manually configured 
nodes, really.  I certainly want to be able to manually configure my 
systems _if I want to_.

You've convincing reasons why you don't want to implement that -- always 
use autoconfiguration.  (I suspect you're dealing with small devices 
which cannot really be "configured" anyway).  It's okay.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords