>>>>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:29:41 +0900,
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> My point in this message is that IMO we should specify the protocols
>>> corresponding to these flags clearly and concretely, without leaving
>>> any ambiguity (I've changed the subject accordingly.) That is, I
>>> strongly believe we should clearly say in rfc2462bis, *for example*,
>>>
>>> - the protocol that should be invoked by the M flag is DHCPv6
>>> (RFC3315), and nothing else
>>> - the protocol that should be invoked by the O flag is stateless
>>> DHCPv6 (RFC3736), and nothing else
(snip)
> Aghhh....you have jumped to the next stage. I didn't intend to
> propose any particular protocols for the M/O flags in the above
> message. I first wanted to make it clear that we should clearly
> specify particular protocols for the M/O flags, whatever they are.
> That's why I emphasized the phrase "for example" by the set of
> asterisks.
Hmm, despite the notice, people have started and explored the
specific discussion on which protocols should be specified for the M/O
flags and how we describe it...
Please recall such a discussion will become meaningless (in the scope
of rfc2462bis) unless we can agree on specifying particular protocols
for these flags. So let's first make a consensus on this.
I guess it's okay for most of those who joined the specific discussion
to specify particular protocols. In fact, they seem to have assumed
the agreement.
Can we think this shows a consensus here? If someone strongly
disagrees with this idea, please speak up right now.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
