>>>>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:08:44 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>> Tim Hartrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I believe that it is entirely too late in the life of this protocol
> to be removing these bits. If there is in fact confusion over their usage
> then the usage should be clarified. The original intent of this revision was
> to clarify portions of the specification which were not clear, not to open every
> feature for the full-scale debate and revision. There is running, shipping
> code that makes use of these bits. What, exactly, is the upside in breaking
> that code?
Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean by "running, shipping
code that makes use of these bits." In particular, are you referring
to particular implementations that
- invoke DHCPv6 on the reception of an RA with the M flag being set
- invoke DHCPv6 or (so called) stateless-DHCPv6 on the reception of
an RA with the O flag being set
? If so, could you tell me which implementations do?
Once again, I'm not necessarily pushing the idea of "deprecating" the
M/O flags. Also, breaking existing code is the last thing I want to
do.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
