> Of course there are other ways of reacting to M/O flags that switch to > unflagged but I think that the above behaviour is reasonable.
The problem with this approach is that it is speculative. The text is not particularly wrong, but other behaviors may also make sense, e.g. sticking to the lease until it ends. The downside with speculative text is that it creates a weak spot in the RFC. Ask yourself how much of the text will still be valid in 5 years, when have more operation experience. The normative text will probably still be, but there is a high likelihood that the speculative text will be off-base. What will we do then? Rewrite the entire RFC? When writing standards, less is more. If we are not sure about something, it is probably better to just leave it out. -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
