Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury)

[mcrietf@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (Michael Richardson - IETF mailbox)]

>>>>> "Margaret" == Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com> writes:
    Margaret> Also, how are we going to reach a resolution on our requirements
    Margaret> for IPv6 backwards compatibility, if any?  I have heard one or
    Margaret> two loud (and repeated) objections to Brian's proposed wording:

    Margaret> "An IPv6 host running RFC 2460 IPv6, and running TCP and UDP 
    Margaret> applications, including IPv4 applications running over 
    Margaret> bump-in-the-stack or bump-in-the-API, must be able to open *new* 
    Margaret> TCP and UDP sessions, regardless of which of the site's IPv6 
    Margaret> provider links is up or down."
  
  Why is TCP and UDP specified?

  Does this exclude IPsec? SCTP? MobileIP?

  Or is the intent to make it clear that it isn't just a case of getting
some "X over IP" working where X may possibly not include TCP. 

] Train travel features AC outlets with no take-off restrictions|gigabit is no[
]   Michael Richardson, Solidum Systems   Oh where, oh where has|problem  with[
]     mcr@solidum.com   www.solidum.com   the little fishy gone?|PAX.port 1100[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [