ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"

2001-09-27 17:40:02
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"


--On 27. september 2001 09:32 +0900 Jiwoong Lee <porce(_at_)ktf(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

MUST NOT means that you never do it, and any implementation that does it
is  nonconformant to the spec.
If you find that you have to do it in some case, you have found a bug in
the spec.

Somecases. However, ICMPv6 example case, described in the first mail of
this thread, has not been found but already described in the spec; which
is not a bug at all.

could you give the RFC or draft name, and quote the text you are worried 
about?

Yes. Please have a look on section 2.4 of RFC 2463 (ICMPv6)

    ...

    (e) An ICMPv6 error message MUST NOT be sent as a result of
        receiving:
    ...

         (e.2) a packet destined to an IPv6 multicast address (there are
               two exceptions to this rule: (1) the Packet Too Big
               Message - Section 3.2 - to allow Path MTU discovery to
               work for IPv6 multicast, and (2) the Parameter Problem
               Message, Code 2 - Section 3.4 - reporting an unrecognized
               IPv6 option that has the Option Type highest-order two
               bits set to 10), or

         (e.3) a packet sent as a link-layer multicast, (the exception
               from e.2 applies to this case too), or

         (e.4) a packet sent as a link-layer broadcast, (the exception
               from e.2 applies to this case too), or
    ...


Jiwoong



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>