Subject: RE:

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 12:24:50 +0200

> 
  > > Is there support in this WG for making route optimization 
  > a MUST in all IPv6 hosts ? The ball is really in this WG's 
  > court. This is really a "do you really want ubiquitous end 
  > to end functionality or not?" question
  > 
  > I'm not sure if that rule could be enforced. If a node 
  > keeps on sending to home address, it's a problem for the 
  > home network, but not for the sender.
  > 
  > Is there a business reason for honouring an optimization? 
  > Why would a "free" ad-driven service (e.g. sports news) 
  > care about the well being of someone else's network? Why 
  > should it put effort in the authentication computations, if 
  > there is no benefit for itself?

=> Not only, but there are also rules for MUSTs and SHOULDs.
My understanding is that we only mandate things (MUST) if 
not doing it will break communication. MIP was designed to
make ensure that it works with or without RO. So according
to my understanding of the use of keywords, it should not
be a must. Of course it is an important feature and therefore
SHOULD is appropriate IMHO.

Hesham
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------