Jinmei-san - I distracted the conversation a little with my posting ... I think we have come to consensus as you describe in http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipv6/current/msg02280.html and we can consider the question of "how clearly we should specify the stateful address configuration protocol" closed. "stateless address autoconfiguration" is the widely-accepted term and there is no need to change it.
I had intended only to make the suggestion that "stateful" be dropped from the phrase "other stateful configuration" (in RFC 2461) , because of the potential confusion between "other stateful configuration" and "stateless DHCP" (in RFC 3736). There is also potential confusion because there is no "stateless" counterpart to "other stateful configuration".
I also wanted to recall a conversation that taken place at the IPv6 interim meeting about the usefulness of the 'O' bit ... however, if this conversation is out-of-scope to the revision of RFC 2461, that's fine and we can drop it.
- Ralph
At 07:55 PM 4/15/2004 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 06:48:57 -0400, >>>>> Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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.
You're running too fast despite the prior notice:-) But anyway, this thread is surely useful for rfc2462bis. Thanks for raising this topic.
(I won't try to make a response to each follow-up in this sub-thread, but I've read all of them.)
It seems to me that we are discussing two (almost) different issues:
1. whether "stateless" is an appropriate word to describe the address autoconfiguration mechanism specified in RFC2462 (and bis) 2. whether we need the M/O flags in the first place
Regarding issue 1, I personally think "stateless" is appropriate, at least in the sense that we don't have to reword it in rfc2462bis.
In fact, RFC2462 clearly says what "stateless" means in that document. For example, it says in Introduction:
Stateless autoconfiguration requires no manual configuration of hosts, minimal (if any) configuration of routers, and no additional servers.
which means it's a "third-party-serverless" mechanism. Also, the following sentence clearly shows that it is an "autonomous" configuration mechanism:
The stateless mechanism allows a host to generate its own addresses using a combination of locally available information and information advertised by routers.
If we are making a brand-new specification, it might make sense to reconsider the wording from the scratch. However, "stateless address autoconfiguration" has been used for quite a long period (almost for 10 years?), and is used in many documents, including in the title of RFC2462 itself.
So, I don't think the advantage of rewording is worth the expected confusion.
Issue 2 is a big question...it may even affect the "consensus" we just made in the first (and original) part of this thread. I'm going to make a separate thread for this.
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
