Re: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 22/2/19 21:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2019-02-23 09:36, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:
>> On 21/02/2019 22:14, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> Of course, SHOULD means "that there
>>> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>>> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>>> carefully weighed...". In other words, do RFC8028 and Rule 5.5
>>> unless there's a good reason not to.
>>
>> Unfortunately not all vendors understand SHOULD in this way. 
>> Implementing more options is expensive and lowers the profits, so it's 
>> quite easy to fall into "implement all the MUSTS, declare compliancy 
>> with RFCs and ship the product" trap.
> 
> Sure. I dealt with a lot of development managers during my years
> at a 3-letter company, so this error in thinking is quite familiar
> to me. But there is nothing the IETF can really do about that.

Making RFC8028 a MUST in the next rev of node reqs? ;-)

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492