On Apr 27, 2004, at 1:50 AM, Soliman Hesham wrote:
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.
I disagree. There are only 2 known implementations of the O flag, and the author of one of them publicly said he was willing to deprecate it. He said: "Regarding KAME's implementation, at least the implementor (myself) is okay to deprecate the flags. Also, it's just an experimental implementation to identify issues, so this feature (invoking an RFC3736 client) is disabled by default in the implementation and is not officially released in the BSD community. In fact, I'm tempted to deprecate the flags based on my experiments with the implementation, identifying the issues described above."
So I do not believe that the argument that say they are existing implementations
of 'O' thus we cannot deprecate it is very strong
- Alain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
