HI Jinmei,
Thank you for making these changes. The changes you've made do a very good job of reflecting my feedback. I believe that the document is much clearer and more concise with the changes you have made, and the document with the changes is acceptable to me. Do you agree that these changes have made the document clearer? Any concerns about them?
I also agree with you that it would be good to get some WG feedback on these changes. Does anyone else have an opinion about them, one way or the other?
I did notice one minor, editorial nit that you may want to fix before posting the draft. The first occurence of DHCPv6 should be expanded:
OLD: DHCPv6 [RFC3315]
NEW: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315].
But, if you don't get a chance to do that, I believe that the RFC Editor will do it for you.
Thanks, Margaret
At 9:43 AM +0900 11/4/04, JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote:
Dear IPv6 folks, and especially Margaret,
I've not seen any responses to the following proposal:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:56:54 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
So, I now tend to propose the following approach:
- clearly saying in rfc2462bis "it does not specify the use of the M/O flags." (not mentioning other documents). Specifically, remove the 7th paragraph of Section 4 (beginning with "The details of how a host may use the M flag...") - also clarifying in rfc2462bis that the protocol described in rfc2462bis should be performed independently from these flags (in a clearer way).
(and, if we take this idea, the "separate document", whatever it is, should become a PS instead of a BCP as we originally planned).
Please note that this is NOT an attempt to "remove" or "deprecate" the M/O flags. We've already discussed the idea and rejected it, and I don't see a reason for revisiting the past arguments. This is an attempt to make rfc2462bis more self-contained and more matured as a DS, considering the current implementation/deployment experiences of the M/O flags and the other parts of the original RFC2462.
Still, this will require non-trivial changes to the current version of rfc2462bis, so I'd like to get explicit agreement/disagreement from the working group.
I'm happy if the silence means agreement, but I suspect others have been simply too busy for other discussion items to read or comment on it, since I thought the above proposal could be quite controversial.
So, I made an experimental next revision of the rfc2462bis draft based on this proposal and put it at: http://www.jinmei.org/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-07beta1.txt
Specifically,
- this revision does not mention the M/O flags at all. - this revision does not use the phrase "stateful" (except in change logs). But I replaced the phrase with "DHCPv6" wherever appropriate. For example, this revision says like:
DAD is performed on all addresses, independent of whether they are obtained via stateless autoconfiguration or DHCPv6.
instead of saying "via stateful autoconfiguration".
To make progress, I'd like to be sure if this approach is acceptable.
If you have time, please check the proposal and the experimental next revision, and let me know your opinion. If it's okay, I'm then going to address other comments from Margaret (as the shepherding AD).
Thanks,
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
