Re: comments on mech-v2-01

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

> Your wording sums it up nicely. My thinking is that such a case is non-
> obvious, and we should have a note about it in the draft.

OK. I'll add that in the section on dynamic tunnel MTU.

> > The reason it was written like this was to not immediately invalidate
> > any older implementations that might have sent the link-layer address
> > options. I don't know if there ever were any such implementations.
> 
> Do you think we should change it now? I prefer "SHOULD NOT" and
> "SHOULD ignore".

Problem is if both ends of a pair of nodes don't satisfy the recommendation
stated in the SHOULDs. In that case things would not interoperate.
Thus I think there has to be a MUST applied to at least one of the sender
and the receiver.

  Erik