> -----Original Message----- > From: JINMEI Tatuya / çæéå [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 11:24 AM > To: Dave Thaler > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6 > > >>>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:47:17 -0800, > >>>>> "Dave Thaler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >> 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. > > I'm personally happy with this approach. But then rfc2462bis will > need to refer to the node requirements draft, and we'll face similar > questions:
Personally, I don't think there's any need to refer to the node-req doc. We could just keep the language as it was before. -Dave 1H>þ°¢¹"ž+¢êfj)bž b²Ø¿¨žµú+€fŠx¬¶¶Š÷‘z«ž²Û!¶Úlÿü0ÃXžµú+ƒùšŠYšŸùb²Ø~â¦þ
