>>> Ole, it is true that we write in English, and there is always room for >>> "interpretation", sometimes reasoanble room, sometimes not. >>> >>> But in this case we have a demonstrated difference in how people >>> understand the existing text. When we have such a demonstrated >>> difference, we have an obligation to address it. >> >> This particular issue has caused no interoperability issue, > > May I ask what's the data that support this statement? From the shepherd's writeup: IPv6 is implemented on most platforms (hosts, routers, servers, etc.), including proprietary and open source. A list of products that have received the IPV6 Ready logo can be found at: https://www.ipv6ready.org/db/index.php/public/?o=4 > You certainly have no way of knowing this, or whether interoperability > issues may arise in the future. Yes, we do know if our protocols have interoperability issues. Have you implemented RFC2460? I have. So have many others on this list. In the context of implementing 2460 there just is no ambiguity and this issue will never arise. What you are talking about is something else. You are talking about the hypothetical "What if someone standardised something new in the future?" Ole
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP