>>>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:47:17 -0800,
>>>>> "Dave Thaler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 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?
> [...]
> I suspect not. My suggestion in the WG meeting was to not reference DHCPv6
> here, but instead leave it to the node requirements doc to say that DHCPv6
> is the stateful protocol.
I'm personally happy with this approach. But then rfc2462bis will
need to refer to the node requirements draft, and we'll face similar
questions:
- should the reference to the node-req doc be informative or
normative?
- if normative, are there any reference dependency issues?
- (additional question) should we then still refer to RFC3315
(probably as an informative one in this case)
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
