Ny own answers, to kick off discussion...
1. Is the following text an accurate summary of the previous IETF
consensus on the definition and use of M/O bits:
The M/O flags indicate the availability of DHCPv6 service for
address assignment and other configuration information,
respectively. The IPv6 specifications make no requirements on the
behavior of DHCPv6 clients in response to the values of the M/O
flags received in RAs.
Yes, based on my recollection of the discussion and the text
eventually published in RFC 486[12].
2. Does the IETF choose to continue to accept this consensus or should
the definition of client behavior in response to the M/O flags be
revisited?
Yes.
2. YES: Is that consensus adequately described in the IPv6 RFCs or
should
the IPv6 RFCs be revised in some way to describe the consensus
requirements?
The text should be revised to make this consensus clear.
2. NO: How does the IETF want to change this consensus and how should
the
change process be conducted?
N/A....
There have been some suggestions for changes to the current consensus
behavior:
* Deprecate the M/O flags; require that future DHCPv6 clients ignore
the M/O flags; require that routers send RAs with M/O flags set to 1
* Revert to previous definitions and behaviors in RFC 286*
* draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
