>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2005 21:06:53 -0400, >>>>> "Soliman, Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This comment was concerned with removing > the "not" the preceded INCOMPLETE. Peter (who raised the comment) > said he's happy with just the removal, which was a typo. So what else > needs to be done? I thought I had explained that in the previous message: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg04811.html and made it clear that this is a separate issue of the original one from Peter's: I don't know the background of this change, even if we removed the "not"... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ But, in case I was not clear enough, the point is that the relevant change from RFC2461 to rfc2461bis makes the text rather unreadable. So, I'd first like to know the intent of the change. One specific point at the moment: Section 7.2.5 of draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-03.txt reads: If the target's Neighbor Cache entry is in the INCOMPLETE state when the advertisement is received, one of two things happen: If the advertisement were solicited, the state is changed to REACHABLE. Otherwise, the state is set to STALE. Note that the Override flag is ignored if the entry is in the INCOMPLETE state. From this paragraph, the "two things" would be: 1. If the advertisement were solicited, the state is changed to REACHABLE. 2. Otherwise, the state is set to STALE. On the other hand, the corresponding part of RFC2461 was: 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: (....) From this paragraph, the "two things" would be: 1. If the link layer has addresses and no Target Link-Layer address option is included, the receiving node SHOULD silently discard the received advertisement. 2. Otherwise, the receiving node performs the following steps: (....) So, while the beginning part is exactly the same, the "two things" seem to refer to completely different things. The difference itself is not necessarily a problem. However, rfc2461bis-03 then repeats its "two things": - If the advertisement's Solicited flag is set, the state of the entry is set to REACHABLE, otherwise it is set to STALE. Now this make me really confused... Additionally, the relationship between the two parts beginning with "If the (target's) Neighbor Cache entry is in the INCOMPLETE state" is not very clear to me: If the target's Neighbor Cache entry is in the INCOMPLETE state when the advertisement is received, one of two things happen: (...) If the Neighbor Cache entry is in INCOMPLETE state, the receiving node performs the following steps: (...) Note that the second part was one of the "two things" in original RFC2461. All of these things just confused me about what this part wanted to convey. So, again, I'd first like to know the intent of the change, and then I'm willing to suggest explicit text according to the intent. I hope this time I'm clear enough. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
