Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury)

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

At 06:09 PM 4/10/01 , Michael Richardson - IETF mailbox wrote:

> >>>>> "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?

I was actually quoting Brian Carpenter, but I'll respond anyway...

TCP and UDP are the most widely used transports on the Internet.  I certainly
wouldn't have an objection to a solution that _also_ allowed IPSec, SCTP,
MobileIP, etc. to establish new connections in the same situation.  In fact,
I think that such a solution would be preferred.  However, I believe that
the requirement should only be for TCP and UDP.  

Margaret