>>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:44:06 -0400, >>>>> "Soliman, Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I suspect the first paragraph (new in 2461bis) tried to catch >> something, but the entire result does not seem to implement the >> intent... > => RFC 2461 was unclear about the "two things" that it referred to. I believe > it was > your comment to change this paragraph that resulted in the change. I guess you mean comment #12 of this post: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg04369.html If so, it was specifically for the 01 version of 2461bis document, not for the original RFC2461. Here is a copy of 2461bis-01 in question: ======================================================================= If the target's Neighbor Cache entry is in the INCOMPLETE state when the advertisement is received, one of two things happens. Otherwise, the receiving node performs the following steps: - It records the link-layer address in the Neighbor Cache entry. [...] ======================================================================= And this is the corresponding part in RFC2461: ======================================================================= If the target's Neighbor Cache entry is in the INCOMPLETE state when the advertisement is received, one of two things happens. If the link layer has addresses and no Target Link-Layer address option is included, the receiving node SHOULD silently discard the received advertisement. Otherwise, the receiving node performs the following steps: - It records the link-layer address in the Neighbor Cache entry. [...] ======================================================================= In the latter, the meaning of the "two things" is pretty clear: 1. If the link layer has addresses.... 2. Otherwise, ... - It records... - ... On the other hand, above item 1 was removed in rfc2461bis-01, which made the "two things" unclear. Am I now clear enough? One may still think the original text in RFC2461 is not 100% clear about the "two things" and want to see clarification. If so, I don't oppose to that action per se, but personally I'm just fine with the original text (in RFC2461). > I think the > "not" was a typo and should be removed. Do you see any other errors in the > current > logic compared to 2461? It depends on the resolution of the more fundamental point above. Let's make a consensus on this first. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
