I second 1+X. 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 ----- From: <JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H (B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:53 PM Subject: [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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
