(coming back to the root of this discussion...)
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:17:31 +1000,
>>>>> Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think that's one of the issues.
> It leads to the idea that M|O = 1 can be used to invoke Information-Request.
> So in this case, the policy shouldn't be called M policy
> and O policy since either the M or O flag can be used to
> invoke Information-Request.
> Alternatively,
> (where ==> is implies)
> If we assume that the O=1 ==> Information Request is available,
> and we assume that M=1 ==> Rebind/Renew/Request is available,
I now understand that the point is:
if we simply use [RFC3315] (or stateful DHCPv6) and [RFC3736] (or
stateless DHCPv6) then the relationship between the M/O flags and
message exchange types (i.e. Solicit/Advertise/Request/Reply or
Information-request/Reply) will be unclear. We should make the M/O
document so that the relationship will be clear.
In this sense, I agree.
And then we have two choices:
1. M=1 => full RFC3315 (i.e., both Solicit/Advertise/Request/Reply and
Information-request/Reply) is available
O=1 => the RFC3376 subset (i.e. Information-request/Reply) is
available
2. M=1 => Solicit/Advertise/Request/Reply is available
O=1 => Information-request/Reply is available
It seems to me that the choice is a controversial issue in this list.
Also, some people believe that in choice 2 the combination of M=1,O=0
is "invalid" (meaning they think it is a bad combination). But I
personally think whether it's really a bad idea is also a
controversial issue. As I showed in a separate message, I can think
of a "valid" scenario where the administrator wants to specify the
combination.
I must confess I've not fully considered either case (so I reserve the
right to change my mind in the future:-), but right now I think I
slightly prefer choice 2. The reasons are:
- we originally thought (in RFC2462) that the M flag (when ON)
indicated that the host (should) use the stateful protocol **for
address autoconfiguration**. This should mean the M flag (when ON)
indicates Solicit/Advertise/Request/Reply. (i.e, the interpretation
of choice 2)
(Perhaps Greg intended this as "goals of original flags" in San
Diego?)
- choice 2 is more powerful if we agree that M=1,O=0 in choice 2 can
have a valid scenario. In fact, with choice 2 we can describe all
possible scenarios of choice 1, but choice 1 cannot represent the
equivalent of M=1,O=0 in choice 2.
- (I admit this is a subjective opinion) choice 2 makes the semantics
of the two flags less dependent, which I think will make the
behavior clearer/simpler.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
