Subject: RE: Mobility in Nodes Requirements

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:37:07 +0200

Hi all,

> I agree, at least to a degree: I believe the optimal category should be
> BCP or Informational.  PS (as is currently in the charter) is also fine,
> though I see little which would require this -- and in fact might give a
> wrong picture of the nature of the memo.

My opinion is that the document should be a BCP.  Hopefully, 
the chairs could confirm or deny this.

> But this is a discussion we probably have had many times -- too bad I just 
> remember the outcome and justifications (well, one: IPv4 NodeReqs was PS 
> for reasons given by Tim).

IPv4 Node Req predated PS, etc. notations, I think.

John

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Praveen Rajendran <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:39:55 +0530

Hi

The node requirements draft has some requirements which "MAY" be supported.
However in the absence of some rigidity ( MUST or SHOULD ) these
requirements do not convey any information.

A requirement like "IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported." is as good
as its absence from the draft altogether.

The draft in its introduction says
"Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional
 or additional features, but all IPv6 nodes can be expected to
 implement the mandatory requirements listed in this document."

Should the draft stick to only those reqirements that are essential and
steer clear of the others ?? After all it might be tough to capture all
optional features in the draft.

regards
Praveen

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:38:49 +0200 (EET)

> optional features in the draft.

I think it's useful to give a summary of all the relevant specifications, 
whether MAY or not. NodeReqs would then be a useful "reading list" for an 
implementor.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:48:06 +0200

> whether MAY or not. NodeReqs would then be a useful "reading list" for an 

I agree with Pekka.

Jari