>>>>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:33:48 -0400,
>>>>> Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Chairs, Perhaps we need to just accept that we can't get consensus on
> revised wording for the M&O bits and leave the text unchanged
> relative to RFC2461?
One quick comment: we cannot simply do this (module the meaning of
"relative") because in the original text of RFC2461:
M 1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag. When
set, hosts use the administered (stateful) protocol
for address autoconfiguration in addition to any
addresses autoconfigured using stateless address
autoconfiguration. The use of this flag is
described in [ADDRCONF].
O 1-bit "Other stateful configuration" flag. When
set, hosts use the administered (stateful) protocol
for autoconfiguration of other (non-address)
information. The use of this flag is described in
[ADDRCONF].
"described in [ADDRCONF]" is no longer valid (if ADDRCONF=2462bis, not
RFC2462) because 2462bis has completely removed text related to these
bits.
One possible easy compromise, considering the view of not getting
consensus on this, would be to the last sentences to: "(further
details of) The use of this flag is not determined yet". I'm not sure
if this can be any more useful than saying nothing about these bits,
though.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
