Hi Ralph, > I suggest dropping "stateful" from the description because > of the potential > for confusion inherent in providing a "stateful protocol for *other* > configurations" with "stateless DHCPv6" [RFC 3736].
=> I don't find the words "stateful" and "stateless" confusing at all in this context. I think we should keep these words in the RFC. They're meaningful and accurate IMHO. > > This confusion arises from the unfortunate decision to differentiate > RFC 2462 address assignment from DHCP-based address assignment by > designating the former "stateless" and the latter "stateful". That > difference is more accurately captured in RFC 2461bis by > describing RFC 2462 > address assignment as autonomous. But, "stateless address > autoconfiguration" is the accepted phrase with wide > dissemination at this > point... => Both "autonomous" and "stateless" are meaningful descriptions of this process of address config. > In any event, perhaps the best way to simplify the protocol > would be to drop > the "O" bit altogether. That is, make no attempt to control > how a host goes > about finding the additional configuration information. > There was a brief > discussion about this issue at an IPv6 WG interim meeting > (Aug 2002?). If > I remember correctly, and at the risk of over-simplification, the > point of the discussion was that, if I'm a network > administrator, under what > circumstances would I ever want to set the 'O' bit so that a > device does not > use all available mechanisms to obtain other configuration > information? => I find it difficult to agree with statements that use "never". If the function is already implemented and interoperable, I don't see any reason for removing it unless it's harmful. I don't see any harm in this. Given the immaturity of IPv6 deployment, I don't think we should make categorical decisions about what administrators might do. FWIW I think (1) and X are good ways to go (in Jinmei's email). Hesham > > - Ralph > > At 01:20 PM 4/14/2004 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > >On 14-apr-04, at 12:48, Ralph Droms wrote: > > > >>I think DHCPv6 ought to be cited as the protocol for other > configuration > >>information, as well. > > > >>However, it seems to me the phrase "stateful protocol for *other* > >>configurations" is a little misleading. I think the word > "stateful" could > >>be dropped. > > > >And terminally confuse everyone who has ever read RFC2462? > > > >It seems to me that having one bit to indicate the protocol > to be used for > >configuration isn't all that much. Why not expand both > fields to 4 bits, > >and then have the IANA maintain a registry? This could look > something like: > > > >0000 = RA > >0001 - 0111 = TBD, fall back on RA (extra bits could be > ignored as per > >RFC2641) > >1000 = DHCPv6, handling of RA undefined > >1001 = DHCPv6, RA is ignored > >1010 = DHCPv6 + RA > >1011 - 1111 = TBD > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ======================================================== This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all copies. ======================================================== -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
