JINMEI Tatuya writes: [...] > The easiest solution to them would be to list RFC3315 as an > informative reference. I don't know whether this is acceptable. > According to Section 2.7 of draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07.txt, > Normative references specify > > - documents that must be read to understand or implement the > technology in the new RFC > - documents whose technology must be present for the technology > in the new RFC to work > > But the first condition seems to me a bit subjective. Under which > requirement can we decide a document must be read for a different > document? > > The second condition is a bit clearer, but assuming we basically > agreed that implementing DHCPv6 is basically optional, isn't "must be > present" too strong? And if so, can't we still safely use this RFC as > an informative reference? [...]
I suspect not. My suggestion in the WG meeting was to not reference DHCPv6 here, but instead leave it to the node requirements doc to say that DHCPv6 is the stateful protocol. -Dave LR¿¬(®H§‚ 蚊X§‚X¬¶*oê'~ŠàÙž+-«b½ä^ªçÈm¶›?ÿ 0Ö'~Šàþf¢–f§þX¬¶)ßø©¿
