AFAIC, from the beginning, this draft explicitly
considered DHCPv6 (though it was not RFC)
as a stateful mechanism.
"Stateful autoconfiguration is described in [DHCPv6]."
wrote in RFC1971, Aug. 1996.
Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Platform Laboratory. SAMSUNG Electronics
------- Original Message -------
Sender : JINMEI Tatuya / ????<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date : Apr 13, 2004 22:53
Title : [rfc2462bis] what is the stateful configuration protocol
Regarding issue 277 of rfc2462bis (Semantics of M/O flags), one
controversial issue is how clearly we should specify the stateful
address configuration protocol.
The question actually consists of the following two sub-questions:
Question A: how should rfc2462bis specify the stateful protocol?
possible answers:
1. clearly say that stateful address configuration is DHCPv6
2. (intentionally) do not say anything about this, and (implicitly
or explicitly) leave it to the node requirements document
Question B: which references should rfc2462bis have on this matter?
possible answers:
X. add an informative reference to RFC3315
Y. add an informative reference to node-req
Z. add informative references to both RFC3315 and node-req
W. do not add any references for this issue (neither RFC3315 nor node-req)
Opinions vary through the discussion on the mailing list. The
followings are main of them I've seen:
Ralph Droms seems to prefer "1+X".
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipv6/current/msg01941.html
John Loughney agreed with Ralph (though he did not show strong opinion
of his own).
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipv6/current/msg01940.html
Bernie Volz also seems to prefer "1+X".
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipv6/current/msg01912.html
Dave Thaler seems to prefer "2+X" or "2+W".
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipv6/current/msg01918.html
I personally do not have a strong opinion, but we need to move forward
on this anyway. If I need to make a choice, I'd also agree with
Ralph. In fact, I don't see why we cannot be clear on this after the
publication of RFC3315.
Perhaps we might want to leave possibilities of future extensions
(including different "stateful" protocols than DHCPv6) by being
unclear. But is this really a feasible reason?
On the other hand, if we keep being unclear, future readers will keep
wondering what is actually the stateful protocol or whether it's
just enough to implement DHCPv6, etc. Even though the node
requirement document would be able answer the question, they'll have
to reach the document by themselves if we take Dave's suggestion.
Is there any other reason for not being clear on this (i.e., not
clearly say the stateful protocol is DHCPv6)? Or is this just a
matter of preference?
Again, I myself can live with any resolution as long as we can move
forward. So, any productive comments or suggestions are welcome.
Thanks,
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
