|
Sri and other authors, Could you please note that the key change in your document is
what Wes has emailed today to us. However, I am puzzled by the
normative text in your document for the key change. If a host decides to
transmit an IPv6 multicast message as a link-layer unicast message, then as per
your receiver specification, a receiver is still legal to drop such a
message. All you have is a “SHOULD NOT drop” which an
implementation can still not adhere to and drop the message. If the
receiver drops this doctored multicast message, then your goal is not even met.
I think only a “MUST NOT drop” meets your needs. It
would be good to articulate what set of problems are we trying to solve and
then we will see what solutions are needed including any changes to existing RFC’s.
I have already asked once in the mailer for what specifications
exist in the IETF that document the problem cases enumerated by DSL folks or
wireless LAN folks. Thanks, Hemant From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
[mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wes Beebee (wbeebee) In case people haven’t had time to
read the whole draft, the key standards track change to existing RFC’s
is: This is to initiate a two week working
group last call of draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast. Please read it now. If
you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment
to the authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a
statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please post
your comments to the combined lists. -------------------------------------------------------------------- |