>>>>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:45:04 -0400, >>>>> Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I had intended only to make the suggestion that "stateful" be dropped from > the phrase "other stateful configuration" (in RFC 2461) , because of the > potential confusion between "other stateful configuration" and "stateless > DHCP" (in RFC 3736). There is also potential confusion because there is > no "stateless" counterpart to "other stateful configuration". Okay, thanks for the clarification. I had actually intended to propose a similar change, but the discussion have started earlier than I expected:-) > I also wanted to recall a conversation that taken place at the IPv6 interim > meeting about the usefulness of the 'O' bit ... however, if this > conversation is out-of-scope to the revision of RFC 2461, that's fine and we > can drop it. (You meant the revison of RFC 2462?) I think it is in the scope of this work, but do you have a concrete reference to the conversation? Which interim meeting are you talking about? The latest ipv6 interim meeting I remember is the one held in Sep/Oct 1999. I've roughly gone through the meeting minutes at http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/minutes/ipng-minutes-Sep99.txt but I could not find a discussion relevant to this topic. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
