>>>>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:16:03 +1000,
>>>>> "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 3) IMHO, section 3.3 on Address Generation is largely redundant or downright
>> inappropriate. It describes a few useful things, but also goes on to
>> specify how to regenerate the addresses if a conflict is found. This is
>> IMHO very much out of scope for oDAD. At the very least, it should be moved
>> to an appendix, but I'd vote for removal completely.
> Okay, I can see your point. Thinking about it, the logical place is
> perhaps in 2462-bis ... replacing the 5.4.5 behaviour with something
> a little more ... mobile-oriented. Should I leave it as an appendix
> in the meantime?
I don't think this should go to rfc2462bis, since the goal of
rfc2462bis is basically bug fixes and clarifications while
regenerating an address upon duplication is IMO an extension.
The best place should definitely be outside rfc2462bis. It's probably
an appendix of the oDAD document or perhaps a new separate document.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
