On Apr 27, 2004, at 11:49 PM, JINMEI Tatuya /
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
Ok, thanks for the clarification. IMHO, it is not OK to keep the document as DS with O&M given the general lack of implementation.
Hmm, this message of yours seems to have been sent just after my latest one...so, please let me confirm your intention. Can you or can't you live with my revised proposal (attached below)?
see proposal inline.
Regarding the process issue, I personally share your view. But I understood the current practice of the IETF is much more generous than I'd want to see, and I'd accept that for now.
I'm not sure how the chairs can substantiate this position, as it is in violation of RFC2026. 4.1.2 Draft Standard [...[ The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable implementations applies to all of the options and features of the specification. In cases in which one or more options or features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard level only if those options or features are removed.
- 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 think the document should at minimum: - have text that analyze the security aspects of O&M - make it very clear that those bits only provide hints that there may be a DHCPv6 server and hosts MAY want to use it. - Alain.
