> > Note that one of the exception cases is stateless addr conf when > > configuring multiple addresses using the same IID. Is node-requirments > > trying to override this exception? If so, it should be explicit about > > it. Otherwise, I'm not sure why the above sentence is included in > > node-requirements. > > 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.
If this is the case, then there is a need for a clarifying statement. Section 1. states: 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. CP -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
