> > at Draft Standard. Substantive comments should be directed to
> > the mailing list. Editorial comments can be sent to the document
> > editor. This last call will end on 11/15/2004.
>
> I've not gone through the entire document (it's so huge...), but I'd
> like to make some points at this moment.
>
> 1. as we've seen in the AD comments on rfc2462bis, the confusing
> wording "stateful" will be an issue in rfc2461bis, too. If we
> adopt the same consensus we've reached in the rfc2462bis
> discussion, we'll have to remove the phrase of
> "stateful", and just
> use DHCPv6 wherever appropriate.
=> That's fine I was updating the doc to do that anyway.
In particular, we'll have to
> rename the name of the "O" flag of RA, which is currently called
> "Other stateful configuration" flag.
=> Why reanme it?
I think you already said this answer as above. It is to avoid confusing
the meaning of *stateful*. It will be called as "Information Configuration
Behaviour" flag described in M/O document.
Regards
Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Platform Laboratory. SAMSUNG Electronics
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
