Subject: Re: Comments on draft-krishnan-v6ops-teredo-update-03

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:30:28 -0400

Hi Remi,
   Thanks for the comments

Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>     Hello,
> 
> The last paragraph in section 3.2 says "clients SHOULD ignore the cone
> bit". Should this not apply not only to clients but also to relays?

Yes, you are right. We will fix this.

> 
> And should servers stop replying to cone bit requests in an attempt to
> force legacy clients into not using it? (I guess not)

No (as you suspected).

> 
> Section 4 says "Teredo is NOT RECOMMENDED as a solution for managed
> networks.". "NOT RECOMMENDED" is not an RFC2119 keyword. I guess it should
> be all lowercase. Or it should be replaced with a stronger statement:
> "Teredo SHOULD NOT be used within managed networks" ?

It is a RFC2119 keyword and it means exactly the same as SHOULD NOT as
defined in Section 4 of RFC2119

Cheers
Suresh