IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> Mon, 18 May 2009 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <sgundave@cisco.com>
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 C9CC53A6A5D for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2009 12:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.152, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 TehSWJ7Gq-B9 for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2009 12:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04E83A6ABF for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 May 2009 12:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,211,1241395200"; d="scan'208";a="306576194"
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 May 2009 19:40:12 +0000
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n4IJeBn9012274; Mon, 18 May 2009 12:40:11 -0700
Received: from irp-view13.cisco.com (irp-view13.cisco.com [171.70.120.60]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4IJeBcq011522; Mon, 18 May 2009 19:40:11 GMT
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 12:40:11 -0700
From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
In-Reply-To: <787EE0072E8C4FB5AC2EC9FC7AB489F4@china.huawei.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0905181237480.16006@irp-view13.cisco.com>
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> <787EE0072E8C4FB5AC2EC9FC7AB489F4@china.huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=756; t=1242675611; x=1243539611; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; z=From:=20Sri=20Gundavelli=20<sgundave@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Gen-ART=20Last=20Call=20review=20for=20 draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support-12 |Sender:=20; bh=y3JtI+mghTpL8WJrQwyAL0UI0rxmiOKQ2gQN6nFFrt4=; b=JuSSexGJgC3r9cNdphAgxvemj9/HfqSAxstkRS7E64d+oJJv0lW2SKoXzB 12HWImBDnjT8uwhi3P950XqZTvl2kubOkQeFEKw9/cXWHQYa3ep0cXT3lJ5M WYInqAYjUK;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=sgundave@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
Cc: Jonne Soininen <jonne.soininen@nsn.com>, Ryuji Wakikawa <ryuji@jp.toyota-itc.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, 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 19:38:36 -0000

Hi Spencer,



On Mon, 18 May 2009, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

>>  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 for the clarification.

MUST NOT, might be too strong for this. For what ever reasons,
a given implementation might prefer to resend after some time.
We really need not even specify this, but for completeness we
just put this with "SHOULD NOT".

Sri

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email