Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

It appears that it was a bad idea to put a BOF discussion on an existing WG list.  We
are getting way to much noise from the peanut gallery.  Can anybody suggest a list
or host a list for the L2  triggers BOF so that interested parties can have a friendly
discourse without getting pilcers up in arms?   BTW, everyone will be welcome to the
new list.  I just want to avoid drive by sniping at the BOF discussions.  I also want
to encourage people to speak up without feeling shut down by uninterested parties.

Thanks,

Phil
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vernon Schryver" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [pilc] RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement


> 
> (I've somewhat trimmed that list of addresses,  perhaps too much
> and also perhaps too little.  As someone else said, you guys really
> ought to just subscribe to the mailing list instead of forcing
> everyone else to get two or more copies of everything.))
> 
> 
> > RFC 2460 has an explicit requirement on L2 for IPv6 that it support path
> > MTU discovery and that layer 2 either handle segmentation and reassembly
> > itself or that this be done in the driver by a shim. The requirment is
> > abstract, in that it does not specify how the requirement should be
> > implemented for a particular layer 2..
> 
> So what?  It is also silent about many other implementation issues that
> cannot be detected on the wire or tested for standards conformance.
> 
> Yes, because they specify behavior that is visible outside of the box
> and that can be tested for conformance.



_______________________________________________
pilc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/