JINMEI wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:08:28 -0700, "Christian Huitema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:


Some people commented that we needed to clarify what's bad with the
M/O flags if we want to deprecate (or remove) them.


(folding a long line)


The normal IETF practice is that when a document progresses from PS
do DS and then to standard, parts of the specification that are not
actually present in implementations get removed from the spec. As
much as I can tell, we don't have much actual implementation of the
M/O bits. If we follow the logic of the process, we should remove
the corresponding sections from the spec.


Wearing 2462bis editor's hat, I'd really like to know what we should
do with this, process wise (i.e. whether I prefer or not prefer to
deprecate the M/O flags in a technical sense).

We first need to know if we really do not have much actual
implementation of these flags (particularly at the host side), but
it's quite likely the case (again, trying to be fair as a 2462bis
editor).

Then, where can I ask the correct behavior, process-wise?  Working
group chairs?  Internet area directors?

The current goal of 2462bis is to clean-up the specification, not make major changes. At this time, the chairs believe that there is code that sets the M&O bits and at least one implementation that reads and acts on these bits. In addition, DHCPv6 is now in the early stages of deployment and we expect people to begin taking more advantage of these bits. It seems to us to be the wrong time to remove them.

We also do not sense a consensus for or see a benefit of making changes
to 2462 with respect to the M&O bits.  There may be work needed at the
system level to clarify issues with their use, but that is outside the
scope of 2462bis.

So, the chairs do not see a need for removing the M&O bits from 2462 at
this time and request that Jinmei proceed without this change.

Regards,
Bob & Brian
IPv6 WG co-chairs

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to