>>>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:16:17 +0100,
>>>>> Tim Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I'm (currently) leaning toward (2)
>>
>> 2. M=1 => Solicit/Advertise/Request/Reply is available
>> O=1 => Information-request/Reply is available
>>
>> As Ralph mentioned though, the idea of preventing configuration
>> combinations may be less useful than defining how to behave in
>> the case of flag reception. I suppose that comes back to the
>> original aim of the draft authors neither to recommend or proscribe
>> behaviours...
> This could be reasonable, now we know what the protocols associated
> with the flags are. This wasn't known when 2462 was first settled, but
> we have a chance to nail it down for 2462-bis. It also reinforces the
> "hint" nature of the flags.
> But we need to be careful too in that the Node Requirements draft is
> just coming out of the oven and was baked using a different recipe :)
That's perhaps true, though I don't think there will be a big gap
between the description of the node-req document and (future versions
of) the M/O 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
