>>>>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:53:07 +0900,
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Regarding issue 277 of rfc2462bis (Semantics of M/O flags), one
> controversial issue is how clearly we should specify the stateful
> address configuration protocol.
> The question actually consists of the following two sub-questions:
> Question A: how should rfc2462bis specify the stateful protocol?
Thank you all who responded. On this particular topic, the consensus
in this thread seems that we should
1. clearly say that stateful address configuration is DHCPv6
and
X. add an informative reference to RFC3315 (but not to the node-req
document)
I know there was a different opinion, particularly on the first point,
to reduce dependencies, but the number of people supporting the idea
of 1+X seems sufficiently large to make a decision. I hope others can
accept this path.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
