I think DHCPv6 ought to be cited as the protocol for other configuration information, as well.
However, it seems to me the phrase "stateful protocol for *other* configurations" is a little misleading. I think the word "stateful" could be dropped.
- Ralph
At 11:42 PM 4/13/2004 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:53:07 +0900, >>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Regarding issue 277 of rfc2462bis (Semantics of M/O flags), one > controversial issue is how clearly we should specify the stateful > address configuration protocol.
(forgot to mention this) in this message, I intentionally concentrated on the stateful *address* configuration protocol. We'll also need a similar discussion about the stateful protocol for *other* configurations. However, things are much clearer for address configuration and it would help to limit the discussion scope for not making it unncessarily diverse.
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
