Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 21, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Hesham Soliman <[e-mail]>
 wrote:
> => But they're not the only way to support IPv6-only. There are many
> different variations therefore SHOULD/MUST is way too strong. Please check
> the definitions of should and must.

This response seems to be based on the assumption that many different device implementors will make many different choices, and that operators will therefore have to support every possible set of choices that may have been made when implementing each specific device.   This is the exact opposite of what a requirements document like this one is supposed to achieve.   The point of these requirements is to create a reasonable baseline set of expectations that operators can have about devices that will connect to their networks.   If, as a device implementor, you don't want to have to implement the recommended functionality, that's fine, but then you can't claim to support the requirements in the document.

Of course, a SHOULD requirement doesn't prevent you from claiming you support the document, unfortunately.   But at least is gives you a strong hint that the functionality is desirable, and its absence will mean that your device may not provide a good feature set on some operator networks.