At the risk of being accused of dragging out this discussion beyond the 10 year mark, I'm in favor of Bob's wording. I agree with his rationale too.
Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Soliman, Hesham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 10:57 AM > To: Bob Hinden; IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis > > Folks, > > Please take a look at Bob's text below. I'd like to suggest that > we replace the current text in 2461bis with the one below. > Any objections? I'll wait for another week before I can conclude > that we agree on this, i.e. if no one responds. > > Hesham > > > > > > > > For example: > > > > M : > > 1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag. When set, it > > indicates that addresses are available via Dynamic Host > > Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6]. > > > > If the M flag is set, the O flag is redundant and can be > > ignored because DHCPv6 will return all available > > configuration > > information. > > > > O : > > 1-bit "Other configuration" flag. When set, it > > indicates that > > other configuration information is available via DHCPv6. > > Examples of such information are DNS-related > information or > > information on other servers within the network. > > > > Note: If neither M nor O flags are set this indicates that no > > information is available via DHCP. > > > > ----- > > > > I made the assumption that from the clients point of view, > > DHCPv6 and > > DHCPv6-lite are equivalent and didn't call out DHCPv6-lite > > separately > > in the O flag description. Please correct me if I am wrong > > about this. > > > > Comments? > > > > Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
