Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury)

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

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?
> 
>   Does this exclude IPsec? SCTP? MobileIP?

It wasn't intended to exclude IPSEC and that should be mentioned.
Since SCTP is new stuff I don't feel we have the same legacy requirement. 
MobileIP is more tricky since it is still in flux, and it may turn out to 
be part of the solution and not part of the problem. So I'd be hesitant
to add SCTP and MobileIP as explicit legacy requirements.

> 
>   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.

Well, I prefer backwards compatibility requirements to be as
narrow as possible, since they are generally a pain in the neck.

    Brian