Subject: [6lowpan] nd #127 (new): Optional/Mandatory language

From: "6lowpan issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:20:28 -0000

#127: Optional/Mandatory language

 As part of LC review on nd-13 some issues on the optional/mandatory
 language have been brought up:

 From Carsten's review:

 {{{
 Some of the language around optional/mandatory is unclear (this is a
 superset of Jongsoo Jeong's point).  Saying that message X is optional is
 meaningless.  The specification must be clear for each kind of node
 whether (or in what circumstances) that node is expected to be able to
 generate message X and/or understand/act on message X.
 Simple example: 6CO cannot be "optional" if there is context the hosts are
 expected to act on and which they haven't received through some pre-
 configuration.
 }}}

 The solution for this could be to do a review of the optional language,
 and create a matrix for each node type and what messages they are able to
 process.

 From Samita:

 {{{
 In the draft, we have defined ABRO, 6CO, multihop DAD as
 optional. But what is the recommendation to the implementers? Is it
 equivalent to SHOULD or MAY? Does it need any clarification that they
 SHOULD be implemented ?
 }}}

 The authors recommend that the optional features SHOULD be implemented,
 but this needs to be discussed in the WG.

-- 
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  zach@…              |       Owner:  zach@…            
     Type:  enhancement         |      Status:  new               
 Priority:  minor               |   Milestone:                    
Component:  nd                  |     Version:                    
 Severity:  -                   |    Keywords:                    
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/127>
6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>