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

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>]

>I think that might help clarify the issue.

Thank you for bringing up this point.  We will clarify the RS in the
Unnumbered model in the next revision of the draft.

>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.

We are working off of the "IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis" and
won't go against this document.  If a gotcha is found, we will have RFC
4294-bis changed and then apply the change to the CPE Rtr.  Since RFC
4294-bis does not mention RFC 4191, our draft's position is crystal
clear in this regard.  Our draft will follow RFC 4861 because that is
what RFC 4294-bis goes by.  Again, unless something is critically needed
from RFC 4191 to be mandated for the CPE Rtr, we may close this
discussion. 

Thanks,

Hemant