> > Loosing the above setence means that implementations might not
> ^^^^^^^ you meant "Losing" here, didn't you?
Yes.
(I'm assuming we'll have a separate document to describe the details.
But if we cannot agree on this path, we'll need to revise the proposed
text above accordingly.)
That assumption is fine with me.
Ralph suggested:
> mentioning just the FALSE to TRUE transition seems too limited (why is just
> the time of transition interesting?) How about:
>
> On receipt of a valid Router Advertisement (as defined in
> [DISCOVERY]), a host copies the value of the advertisement's M bit
> into ManagedFlag, which saves the mostly recently received value of
> the M bit. The details of how the host uses the M bit to control
> the use of DHCPv6 for address assignment will be described in a
> separate document.
Better. But how about also stating that it might be useful to detect
when the flag values change. For instance,
On receipt of a valid Router Advertisement (as defined in
[DISCOVERY]), a host copies the value of the advertisement's M bit
into ManagedFlag, which saves the mostly recently received value of
the M bit. The details of how the host uses the ManagedFlag,
including any use of the "on" and "off" transitions for this flag, to
control
the use of DHCPv6 for address assignment will be described in a
separate document.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
