[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mech-v2: processing of non-ipv6 packets [Re: mech-v2-05pre]
JINMEI Tatuya <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> wrote:
> I think option 3 makes most sense. I can live with option 1, but it
> seems just redundant as Vlad pointed out. Option 2 seems odd to me
> because proto-41 should be specific to IPv6 and there seems no
> reasonable reason to mention other versions than 6 in this context.
If we can't reach agreement on new text with "MUSTs" then we should
revert to saying nothing at all and trust that robust implementations will
do the right thing w/o gratuitous specification, which I believe is also
reinforced by Brian's citations:
Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
> RFC 1958 points 3.5 and 3.9 (and even 3.10) strongly suggest silent
> discard in such a case, i.e. solution 1.
I agree that these points strongly suggest the silent discard, but wouldn't
that indicate solution 3? (BTW, "parsimonious" seems an odd word to
find in a document about simplicity.)
Fred