Hi Tim, > I guess it would be good to get Ralph's input here. > > Clearly clients may implement a subset, and if we consider that for this > document we can either > > a) add references to stateless DHCPv6, but this is not finished so that > is not ideal > > b) use language that emphasises whether the client implements stateful > address configuration and/or other configuration options (and for now > we assume that these are the two possible subsets of functionality) > > Running with b) seems safer at this stage - it would add a bit of wordage > but avoid the possible hold-up that Thomas hints at?
I'd prefer adding an informative reference to stateless DHCPv6, and mention its relation to 'normal' DHCP. Ralph, any suggested text? John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
