I agree with this and think that a MUST for stateless and MAY for DHCP is fine.

Bob (with no hats on)

We had a conclusive discussion off this point during the interim WG
meeting in Sunnyvale. The reasoning goes as follow: if we want to
maximize interoperability, we want to have a single mandatory address
configuration procedure, not two; everybody agrees that we must support
stateless address configuration; thus we should make stateless
mandatory, and other configuration methods optional.

This is properly reflected in section 5.3 (nodes MAY support DHCPv6), in
section 4.5.2 (MUST support stateless) and in the current text of
section 4.5.5, which is just fine.

-- Christian Huitema
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to