The idea of suggesting the option 1 is to make it clear to the
implementator
of possible bogus packets which needs to be taken care.
But definitely I am also not against option 3 provided that we add the
info of "possible bogus packets threats" in the appropriate section in the
draft.
IMHO, i would like to support Option 2 for
the very simple reason that proto-41 is ONLY for transporting/carrying IPv6
packets over IPv4.
-Radhakrishnan
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 4:53
PM
Subject: Re: mech-v2: processing of
non-ipv6 packets [Re: mech-v2-05pre]
> 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