Subject: Re: [savi] Requirements level for data-packet-triggered bindingcreation

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:07:55 +0800

“Should”
 Thanks，
 Hui Yao

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Christian Vogt" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 7:10 AM
To: "SAVI Mailing List" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [savi] Requirements level for data-packet-triggered 
bindingcreation

> Folks,
>
> I would like to note a subtle difference between a conditional MUST and
> a conditional SHOULD.  Although for both MUST and SHOULD, the addition
> of a condition limits the applicability of the rule being specified, the
> rule will have a different requirements level in those scenarios where
> it does apply:
>
> - If we use a conditional MUST, then the rule has to be followed
>  provided the added condition renders the rule applicable.
>
> - If we use a conditional SHOULD, then the rule is at most a strong
>  recommendation.  There may still be good reasons not to follow the
>  rule, even if the the added condition renders the rule applicable.
>
> Consequently, in order to decide whether to use a conditional MUST or a
> conditional SHOULD, my question to the working group is the following:
> In scenarios where direct host attachment to the SAVI device cannot be
> guaranteed, what requirements level do we want to use for data-packet-
> triggered binding creation:  MUST or SHOULD?

Dear WG members,

My answer to this question is "SHOULD".

Thanks,
Jun Bi

>
> - Christian
>
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2010, Marcelo Bagnulo Braun wrote:
>
>> An example of what i understand is a conditional MUST can be foudn
>> for instance in RFC4862, where it reads:
>>
>> 5.4.  Duplicate Address Detection
>>
>>   Duplicate Address Detection MUST be performed on all unicast
>>   addresses prior to assigning them to an interface, regardless of
>>   whether they are obtained through stateless autoconfiguration,
>>   DHCPv6, or manual configuration, with the following exceptions:
>>
>>   -  An interface whose DupAddrDetectTransmits variable is set to
>>      zero does not perform Duplicate Address Detection.
>>
>>   -  Duplicate Address Detection MUST NOT be performed on anycast
>>      addresses (note that anycast addresses cannot syntactically be
>>      distinguished from unicast addresses).
>>
>> i.e. you MUST do X except in the following condtions.
>>
>> (or at least that is what i understood what the conditional must was)
>>
>> Regards, marcelo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> savi mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi
> 

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 02:05:13 +0800
From: "Bi Jun" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [savi] revision of savi-dhcp
To: "Christian Vogt" <[email-masked]>,              "SAVI 
Mailing
                 List" <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <E8FE5A9F4F934C32821A3C6858A16479@junbiVAIO>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"

Dear Christian,

Thank you very much for your comments.
We are working on the savi-dhcp-04, and the attached file reflects our 
modification based on your comments.
We are waiting for the conclusion of the "conditional MUST" or 
"conditional SHOULD" for data-trigger.
In any case, it can not be a "MUST". Personally, I agree with Fred Baker's 
proposal to use "conditional SHOULD".

Best Regards,
Jun Bi

************************************