I'm just catching up on this thread ... I was off-line (sleeping) and found it in my inbox this AM.
I'll follow up in a couple of hours, after I catch up on a couple of pressing day job issues.
There is another issue with RFC 2462 that will fall somewhere among clarification/update/revision of the spec in RFC 2462: the text describing the use of the OtherConfigFlag and the O flag in RAs is slanted toward the definition of the protocol for "other configuration information" as a "stateful" protocol (if I remember correctly, the text in question is in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462). There are both technical and editorial issues with that text. I'll follow up a little later this AM.
- Ralph
At 02:24 PM 12/4/2003 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
