Re: comments on shirasaki-dualstack-service-00

[SHIRASAKI Yasuhiro <yasuhiro@nttv6.jp>]

Hi Pekka,

> 2. Requirements
> 
>    The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
>    SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this
>    document, are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
> 
> ==> I'd remove this section completely and switch to lower case must,
> should, etc. because this isn't exactly a document with interop interest :-)

agree. I'll remove it.

>    When CPE receives packets which are destined for the delegated
>    prefix, CPE MUST NOT forward the packets to a PE. CPE SHOULD return
>    ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message to a source address or
>    silently discard the packets.
> 
> ==> would it be worthwhile to describe how this is accomplished?  Null0
> route is at least trivial, but it won't return an unreachable message
> except by explicit config in some implementations.  But maybe this is
> outside of scope..

I've imagined reject route behavior of KAME stack first at that time.

Anyway, thank you for your comments. I'll update the draft.

--
SHIRASAKI Yasuhiro @ NTT Communications