Re: comments on mech-v2-01

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Chirayu Patel wrote:
> 9) Link-layer address (which is an IPv4 address) is not meant to be used
>    with ND. Is there any reason that the sending (of link-layer address)
>    is a "SHOULD NOT", and the receiving is a ?MUST ignore?. The sending,
>    and the receiving parts should be made consistent with respect to
>    link-
>    layer address. i.e. sending should be a "SHOULD NOT", and receiving
>    should be a "SHOULD ignore?, or sending should be a "MUST NOT", and
>    receiving should be a "MUST ignore?. Btw, "NOT" is not a keyword.
>    Hence "s/NOT/not".

I had made a note about the same thing in my comments (to-be-written-up).

IMHO, as RFC2461 doesn't even specify the format for an IPv4 Link-layer
address, there is little need for go into this much text here.  I guess
this is a remnant of 6over4 spec which had that definition.

The question is, do we want to care about the fact that 6over4 
unfortunately defined the link-layer option, or do we want to spell out 
the obvious requirement here with "MUST NOT include" and "MUST ignore".

In practice, this has of little relevance if 6over4 is not implemented..
So, maybe we could find a wording that wouldn't require using a lot of 
text and upper-case keywords?

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