On 2004-06-09, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote: > "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > [Pekka Savola wrote:] > > > > > > 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.
Okay, I can see that. It's a bit big to be a bug fix :-) > The best place should definitely be outside rfc2462bis. It's probably > an appendix of the oDAD document or perhaps a new separate document. I'm leaning towards moving it to an appendix and removing all requirement words ... would this be sufficient for all parties? It could be followed up in another document, but I'd hate to make Opti-DAD dependent on anything else ... it's been too long in the pipeline as it is. -----Nick -- Nick 'Sharkey' Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://zoic.org/sharkey/> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
