Subject: RE: [rfc2462bis] relationship between M/O flags and relatedprotocols

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 00:16:53 -0700

> Of course there are other ways of reacting to M/O flags that switch to
> unflagged but I think that the above behaviour is reasonable. 

The problem with this approach is that it is speculative. The text is
not particularly wrong, but other behaviors may also make sense, e.g.
sticking to the lease until it ends.

The downside with speculative text is that it creates a weak spot in the
RFC. Ask yourself how much of the text will still be valid in 5 years,
when have more operation experience. The normative text will probably
still be, but there is a high likelihood that the speculative text will
be off-base. What will we do then? Rewrite the entire RFC?

When writing standards, less is more. If we are not sure about
something, it is probably better to just leave it out.

-- Christian Huitema

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Christian Strauf (JOIN)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:53:08 +0200

Christian,

> something, it is probably better to just leave it out.
yes, I agree with you. That's why I suggested to use the text only if
the "may"s as Tim suggested seem to be an appropriate choice. But I see
your point in leaving this as open as possible and in only adding
details to it if interoperability issues arise.

Christian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:57:28 +0200

> be off-base. What will we do then? Rewrite the entire RFC?

We update it like anything else.  In the end what enterprises will need 
are a set of predictable behaviors so they know how long transition 
states will last.  So long as you can answer those questions in the 
draft, life is good.

Eliot