>>>>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:50:26 +0900,
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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.
It might be too early to conclude, but I interpret the silence as an
agreement at the moment.
So, what we've agreed on so far are:
- we'll keep the M and O flags
- we should clearly specify the protocols corresponding to the flags
(without leaving ambiguity)
- the protocol for the M flag is DHCPv6 (we've already reached a
consensus on this, but I mention it explicitly because we've had
some fundamental discussions)
And what we should discuss from now on are:
- which protocol should be used for the O flag
- details of the relationship between each flag and protocol, e.g.
whether we should mandate to invoke the protocol or we can just
regard the flag as a hint and let the host decide if it invokes the
protocol (as Christian suggested), etc.
I'll be off from the list for a vacation until May 7th. Hopefully the
discussion will continue in a productive manner during the period but
will not diverge very much:-)
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
