In the wg meeting on Tuesday, several concerns were raised regarding
this issue (and the proposed resolution). To summarize (some of)
them,
1. the resolution proposes to say "the stateful protocol is DHCPv6"
clearly, without leaving other possibilities. This would require
RFC3315 (DHCPv6) to be listed as a normative reference. However,
we'll then face a reference dependency issue, since rfc2462bis is
soon expected to be recycled as a DS while RFC3315 is still a PS.
(BTW: I could not find a direct source of this dependency issue.
Could someone give me a pointer?)
2. also, listing RFC3315 as a normative reference may be unreasonable
for implementors since it would force them to read RFC3315, which
is a quite large document, whereas we are going to make
implementing the stateful protocol optional (at least in some
sense). I don't know if this concern is widely shared by wg
members, though.
The easiest solution to them would be to list RFC3315 as an
informative reference. I don't know whether this is acceptable.
According to Section 2.7 of draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07.txt,
Normative references specify
- documents that must be read to understand or implement the
technology in the new RFC
- documents whose technology must be present for the technology
in the new RFC to work
But the first condition seems to me a bit subjective. Under which
requirement can we decide a document must be read for a different
document?
The second condition is a bit clearer, but assuming we basically
agreed that implementing DHCPv6 is basically optional, isn't "must be
present" too strong? And if so, can't we still safely use this RFC as
an informative reference?
Note: I'm not necessarily pushing the easy solution. I'm just not
sure about the base of the discussion, and want to be sure about it.
Any clarifications are welcome. Thanks,
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
