Pekka, I suspect we are playing games with language, but ...
> > 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? > > I don't think this is a problem. You don't have to understand DHCPv6 > to ignore M/O bits -- which you only act upon IF you have implemented > DHCPv6 -- and then you understand it already :). .. but the goal of 2462(-bis) is STATELESS ADDRESS AUTOCONFIG. I don't think that this document has ANY normative dependencies on Stateful Address Autoconfig. Re-reading the draft several times, I can only see that DHCPv6 is informative, at best. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
