Hi Jinmei,
In the text, I've tried to seperate the requirements for Stateless Address Autoconfig
from the use of DHCP for other config info.
My opinion is that Stateless Address Autoconfig support is MAY. If a node would need
Stateless Address Autoconfig, then DHCPv6 support is a MUST for Stateless Address
Autoconfig.
If a node needs other config info, then DHCPv6 is a SHOULD, which is independent
of Stateless Address Autoconfig.
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 19 March, 2003 21:20
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: some opinion about the requirement level of
> DHCPv6 (for nodereq)
>
>
> (oops, sorry, the message was incomplete)
>
> >>>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:31:22 +0900,
> >>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > As for other configuration (e.g. DHCPv6) by DHCPv6:
> > I would vote for SHOULD, with one condition that
>
> ... that the other configuration specification is clearly separated
> from full support of DHCPv6 (to mitigate the load of implementing the
> full spec). draft-droms-dhcpv6-stateless-guide may help to explore
> this separation.
>
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> Communication Platform Lab.
> Corporate R&D Center,
> Toshiba Corp.
> [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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
