Jinmei,
> So far, all the responses in this thread seem to support having
> RFC3315 (DHCPv6) in rfc2462bis as an informative reference, and not
> referring to the node-req draft. Is my understanding correct?
Yes, I think so.
> I can live with this approach. But I also think it is helpful to
> mention like "what is the stateful protocol (and propbably the
> mandatory level to implement it) is beyond the scope of rfc2462bis and
> is specified in a separate document". Otherwise, readers would
> continue to wonder what the stateful protocol is while we could
> actually answer the question.
How about:
This document does not define stateful address autoconfiguration, which
is specified in a seperate document [informative reference here].
> In summary, I'd like to propose
>
> - in the body of rfc2462bis, we do not explicitly say what the
> stateful protocol is but mention that it is specified in a separate
> document.
> - regarding reference, we only list RFC3315 as an informative
> reference. (and we probably need some additional text in the body
> that refers to the reference)
>
> Does this make sense?
I'm happy with it.
John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
