Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:17:04 -0700
From: Yinghui Yao <Yinghui.Yao@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: [users:00572] Re: Inerop.1.7
To: Yukiyo Akisada <akisada@tahi.org>
Cc: users@tahi.org
Message-Id: <47AB2F00.80008@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080207152323.5dfb1ff0.akisada@tahi.org>
References: <47AA1FEF.9030305@alcatel-lucent.com> <20080207152323.5dfb1ff0.akisada@tahi.org>
X-Mail-Count: 00572

Thanks Yukiyo.

We are thinking to omit this test because it doesn't add value in the 
future. But I still have a question.  In conformance test, we managed to 
configure our software flags to pass RH0 related tests the way Self_Test 
1.4.9 wanted (not default behavior). The questions is if we omit Interop 
1.7, should we leave those RH0 related conformance tests fail to be 
consistent?

Thanks,
Yao

Yukiyo Akisada wrote:
> Hi, Yao.
>
> They can be omitted if you support RFC 5095.
> It can be the same manner as conformance testing.
>
> Please also refer beta version of scenario
> <http://www.ipv6ready.org/pdf/IPv6Ready_PhaseII_Base_Interop_version_2_9_0.pdf>.
>
> It was described as "Possible Problems:" in that time.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:00:31 -0700
> Yinghui Yao <Yinghui.Yao@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi Akisada-san,
>>
>> Since RH0 is deprecated, do we still need to test "Routing header 
>> processing"?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yao
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yukiyo Akisada <akisada@tahi.org>
>