Anyway, I'll be travelling for the next couple of days. I'll review the text in question and post some text no later than early next week.
- Ralph
At 03:39 AM 1/28/2003 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ralph, I don't think that this was discussed completely last IETF. I was wondering if you could suggest some text for the current Node Requirements doc?thanks, John > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 21 November, 2002 14:56 > To: Greg Daley; Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki) > Cc: Bound, Jim; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-01.txt > > > There may be some additional discussion about the 'M' and 'O' > bits during > my slot in the ipv6 WG meeting Thu AM. > > - Ralph > > At 12:09 PM 11/21/2002 +0000, Greg Daley wrote: > > >Hi Jim, > > > >I find it hard to tell if you mean it is wrong (incorrect) or > >wrong (not the right way to go). > > > >about the current status though, > > > >section 5.4.5 of RFC 2462 mentions that a node which receives the > >M flag goes should undertake stateful address configuration. > >there is no MUST requirement in that section, though section 5.5 > >does say > > > >"the processing described below MUST be enabled by default" > > > >If the intention was that nodes which have DHCP/managed capability > >support this when the M flag is set, it's unclear. At the moment, > >it looks optional to implementors. > > > >Does it require update? Comments? > > > >Greg > > > > > >"Bound, Jim" wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Regards. > > > > > > /jim > > > [Honor, Commitment, Integrity] > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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] > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >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] > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
