On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 10:34:39AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Following the discussions, it isn't entirely clear to me why we > could need to open this issue. I think that there is concensus > for keeping it as is (as described in Christian's mail). > > Am I missing something?
My impression is that the discussion stems from the newly reached consensus (since the original semantics were defined in 2462) that M=1 implies that RFC3315 functionality is available and O=1 implies that RFC3736 functionality is available. With RFC3736 being a subset of RFC3315, it is thus on first glance "odd" that you can have M=1, O=0, when M=1 implies RFC3736 support is there, as a subset of RFC3315. While specific protocols were not mentioned in 2462, this wasn't such an issue, but now that they are (in Section 4), and we know the properties and features of each, maybe it is? Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
