>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2004 18:00:48 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I think Jinmei-san suggested deleting the whole notion of an
>> internal-to-the-implementation ManagedFlag and OtherConfigFlag. I
>> extrapolated from that suggestion that the host would (in a stateless way)
>> base its behavior on the most recently received values for M/O (which, I
>> guess, means the implementation really does need ManagedFlag and
>> OtherConfigFlag). So, as soon as the M/O bits transition to set, the host
>> would begin using DHCPv6.
> I think the intent is not to prescribe "begin using" but merely to make it
> clear that the transition means that DHCPv6 is now available
> whereas before the transition it was not available.
My intention was basically to stop prescribing "begin using" and make
it clear that the transition means the availability. In that sense,
Erik is correct. But then I also suggested to remove ManagedFlag and
OtherConfigFlag (which are internal-to-the-implementation) since they
are only meaningful when we are prescribing the invocation of DHCPv6,
so Ralph's understanding is also correct in that sense.
Regarding whether the host would begin using DHCPv6 at the transition
of the M flag from unset to set: rfc2462bis wouldn't say anything
about this point by the original intention. If we can agree on making
a separate BCP document, it will clarify this point.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
