> > I'm certainly not implying any API.
> > Why do you think the text with the forward reference to "a separate
> > document"
> > implies any API?
>
> The forward reference is asking the implementers to manage an extraneous
> state variable. As far as ND is concerned, the host can be entirely
> conformant and interoperate fine with others without that state variable.
> So, the only reason for the state variable is to facilitate the
> implementation of something else than ND, which will use the value of the
> state variable. For that you need some form of API.
Christian,
I'm confused. You had propopsed text which still had the ManagedFlag
in there. Your proposal was:
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.
So if you think that the existence of the ManagedFlag implies that there
is an API (which I don't think FWIW) then shouldn't you argue that
all existance of ManagedFlag (and OtherConfigFlag) should be removed
from the document? (and not just the above paragraph)
Hence I'm confused.
My concern is that in removing all mention of the state transitions
we are removing information from the document, yet we haven't shown
that that information is incorrect.
(We haven't shown that it is needed either, but the approach seems to
be leave things unchanged unless there is a reasonably strong case.)
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
