[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) writes: > there was a big discussion in the recent IETF meeting (don't remember > which one) and the consensus was to drop "you can omit DAD for > addresses with same IID" part from the DAD, IIRC (need to check > minutes). if my memory is corret, my guess is that the node > requirement is more up-to-date on this issue.
I too seem to recall a discussion or two on this topic, even before vienna. But 1) should node-requirements be the document that updates this, or should addrconf be updated? 2) If the former, the words in the current document aren't explicit enough. Especially given the following wording in node-requirements: > This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and > references RFCs for this purpose. In case of any conflicting > text, this document takes less precedence than the normative > RFCs, unless additional clarifying text is included in this > document. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
