>>>>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 04:50:00 -0400,
>>>>> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 1. there is code that sets the M&O bits. (router implementations)
>> 2. there are at least two implementations that read and
>> act on the O
>> bit. These two implementations both invoke stateless DHCPv6 as
>> the action.
> => So based on 1) and 2) I suggest that people who want to continue
> this discussion, despite the chairs' recommendation should limit the
> discussion to the M flag. If there are implementations that support
> the O flag then removing it should be out of the question.
Fair enough, in that this is the chair's recommendation.
But please note that these implementations assume what is not
described in RFC2462; they assume the protocol corresponding to the O
flag is stateless DHCPv6 (RFC3736). So, *if* we need to remove the M
flag due to the lack of implementation process-wise but we can keep
the M flag because of these implementations, the description in
rfc2462bis regarding the O flag should be consistent with the
assumption, as a logical consequence. We should probably clarify in
rfc2462bis that the protocol for the O flag is RFC3736, and nothing
else. (For that matter, I'm happy with it.)
In any event, I'd first like to clarify the general point before going
to each detail to avoid further confusion. The question is:
We do not have an implementation on some part of RFC2462. Can we
still recycle rfc2462bis as DS (process-wise), keeping that part,
despite the lack of implementation?
If the answer is yes, we can concentrate on technical aspects of the
discussion for both the M and O flags.
If the answer is no, we need to somehow deprecate/remove the M flag,
and then concentrate on issues about the O flag (as you suggested
above).
I simply do not understand the answer to the general question, and I
think it's too early to suggest something at the moment, assuming the
answer is "no". (I'm not intending to say this as a deal for
"killing" the O flag as well. Rather, I'm saying this because we can
even keep both flags if the answer is "yes".)
Again, I'd really like to hear the answer to the general question
from someone familiar with the process. 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
