>>>>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 06:21:24 -0400, >>>>> Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As a I stated in an earlier message, I believe it is okay to recycle > at DS given the granularity of detail in the interoperability reports. > http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/nd-auto-implementations.txt > clearly shows that the interoperation is being measured at the message > level and not at the bit level. Okay, thanks. Then it is probably okay to keep these flags in terms of the standardization process, even if we don't have the corresponding implementations at all. I personally would like to have a closer review process, but as Pekka said, this is apparently what we have, and I'm not intending to fight against it (at least for rfc2462bis). (wearing an editor's hat) through the discussion so far, it seems to me that we should keep both the flags. The reasons are: - there seems to be no process issue (about interoperable implementations) - the other points I raised to deprecate the flags were (apparently) not convincing enough - we may need some additional consideration for security concerns Alain raised, but I think we can deal with them without deprecating the flags: + as (implicitly?) described in the node requirements draft, it's optional to implement DHCPv6 in the first place, and the node req document warns administrators about the implication about turning on the M flag. Perhaps the node req draft could also add the security concerns, and/or rfc2462bis can describe the issues in its security consideration section. + after all, the entire autoconfiguration mechanism using RA (without SEND) is vulnerable to attacks from a malicious party in the same link. It might be true that the concerns raised by Alain increases the vulnerability, but I guess we can accept it by noting the concerns in the security consideration section. I hope this is acceptable for everyone. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
