John, I have not found any more deprecated cases. But will keep looking just in case.
For the M bit. If it is set to a client then the client must find a stateful server for managed addresses to be unconditionally mandatory compliant. Rationale is if the M bit is set the network administrators are telling nodes to do use a stateful mechanism to get addresses. And network administrators are in charge of that policy and they have opted to not use stateless for all addresses or any addresses in this case. /jim [A people who would give up their freedom out of fear did not deserve it in the first place. Ben Franklin] > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 7:52 PM > To: Bound, Jim; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-01.txt > > > Hi Jim, > > > Today in v6ops I think I heard that compliance to the ND M > bit being > > set is optional. That I think is wrong. But the node reqs > doc states > > that dhcpv6 is unconditionally optional which is probably correct > > because stateful may not imply dhcpv6 today. But if the M > bit is set > > the host node (non router) must look for a stateful node. > We need to > > get this right. > > > > P.S. John - I will have all my input on this to you in the next few > > weeks. But it looks real good. I like the terminology too. > > Glad you think that the document looks good. Review it & let > me know what you think - especially suggest what text you > think is needed for the M bit. > > John > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
