Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

[james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>]

On Mar 23, 2009, at 14:08, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> We can certainly mandate in the Unnumbered section that the WAN  
> interface MUST send an RS.

I think that might help clarify the issue.

> This draft takes the position taken by RFC 4861 which in section 4.2
> says [Future versions of this protocol may define new option types.
> Receivers MUST silently ignore any options they do not recognize
> and continue processing the message.]

Does RFC 4191 not predate RFC 4861?  Yes, I realize that RFC 4191 was  
not categorized as an update of RFC 2461, the predecessor of RFC 4861,  
but it's really not fair to treat a standards-track RFC published over  
three years ago as a "future" specification.

If the draft doesn't want to take a position on whether CPE routers  
MUST, SHOULD NOT, MAY or MAY NOT process RFC 4191 More Specific Route  
options, then I think it would help to be explicit about it.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering