IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review for draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support-12

"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org> Mon, 18 May 2009 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8851628C263 for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2009 12:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.401, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uCyv6eD+h120 for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2009 12:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB6128C2D1 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 May 2009 12:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from S73602b (w173.z064002096.dfw-tx.dsl.cnc.net [64.2.96.173]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKp8S-1M686K2xsh-000fyL; Mon, 18 May 2009 15:02:23 -0400
Message-ID: <787EE0072E8C4FB5AC2EC9FC7AB489F4@china.huawei.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
To: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
References: <DB4D9BF777D1481FA7E5CC0FED4813E3@china.huawei.com> <4A119BD4.3090204@piuha.net> <CEC24D64C63D4A0697F1DA0D249CA4DE@china.huawei.com> <4A11AC12.2080506@piuha.net> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0905181144291.16006@irp-view13.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 14:02:00 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="response"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+IrIeVIddq8JdLFJgMFLwT0HfpEGnwvcr2Ysa JCTMVEvuvuX56WSsy+VNXA2LXvlWnvppY0qfCSGE9o/gY8Ve7Z mbX+qhOQnWKpN0rtHk1fbs8SDP8DCGXUbGzWQOuanc=
Cc: Jonne Soininen <jonne.soininen@nsn.com>, Ryuji Wakikawa <ryuji@jp.toyota-itc.com>, Vidya Narayanan <vidyan@qualcomm.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review for draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support-12
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 19:02:48 -0000

Hi, Sri,

(Thanks to everyone for the quick responses - I can still remember the 
review without having to re-read it ;-)

> If the request is rejected with a specific reason, there is not point
> for the requester to continue to send the messages for the exact same
> service. Its ok to resend the message when some thing changes. Ex: An
> administrative action allowing the user for that service.
> So, the "SHOULD NOT" is with the goal to avoid unnecessary messaging.
> Otherwise, the requester will recv the same error code.

I'm sorry, I'm not asking the question clearly - I'm asking why these SHOULD 
NOTs aren't MUST NOTs. Is there a reason why the requestor would resend the 
messages for the same service, without changing anything?

If there's a reason, SHOULD NOT would be appropriate. If there's not a 
reason, perhaps MUST NOTs would be more appropriate.

Thanks,

Spencer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email