> The facts are:
>
> 1. there is code that sets the M&O bits. (router implementations)
> 2. there are at least two implementations that read and
> act on the O
> bit. These two implementations both invoke stateless DHCPv6 as
> the action.
=> So based on 1) and 2) I suggest that people who want to continue
this discussion, despite the chairs' recommendation should limit the
discussion to the M flag. If there are implementations that support
the O flag then removing it should be out of the question.
Hesham
========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact
the sender and delete all copies.
========================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
