In your previous mail you wrote:
This starts a 1 week IPv6 Working Group Last Call on advancing:
Title : Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection for
IPv6
=> I have two concerns about the draft:
- requirement level keywords are used only in section 3 but
MUST and must have different meanings. As it is clear than
the section 3 is not equivalent to the whole document, I believe
this choice is unfortunate...
- 2.1 talked about "manually assigned" addresses without formal
definition, for instance the text only suggests RFC 3041 addresses
are not included in this "manually assigned". BTW the "should"
in 2.1 is an example of my previous concern.
A comment: even if this version of optimistic DAD seems to be really
compatible with DAD goals, I still believe that in a mobile environment
the network manager should simply disable DAD (i.e., count=0) on all
nodes on application to the KISS principle.
Thanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
