Re: [dhcwg] Interface

> OK - I sense the equivalent of grade inflation here caused by
> presumed clueless implementors. Need to update RFC 2119 with the
> "REALLY MUST" and "REALLY MUST NOT" to deal with this :-) :-)

*grin*    I think there's some truth to it, but you're making it out to
 be worse than it is.

> No, I did NOT! Please re-read the email thread.

Oops, sorry.

> 	MUST send on that interface since otherwise the agent will be
> 	confused.
> This statement is incorrect.

Okay, I'll buy that.

> But if the statement is instead
> 	MUST send on that interface to ensure that the packet is guaranteed
> 	to appear on the correct link (*). If the message appears on the wrong
> 	link the agent will be confused.
> 	*) This ensures that the packet arrives on the correct link even
> 	in the case when a node has multiple interfaces on the same link
> 	but has incorrect information about which interfaces connect to
> 	which links.
> I think the footnote can be omitted - but it might help future readers to
> understand the background.

This wording works for me (I'll let Ralph decide about the footnote).
Thanks for continuing to beat me up about this!  :'}

			       _MelloN_

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg