Hello,
I'm not sure if I understand your comments on
draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-00.txt in the wg meeting. (I've checked
the jabber log to be sure, but I'm still not 100% sure). Would you
mind to repeat those?
To provide some answers at the moment:
As for the comment on policy 1 (always try DHCPv6/stateless-DHCPv6),
it's true that the policy might cause weird effects (but I'm not sure
if it's specific to mobile nodes). So I agree that we should be
careful when taking this policy. Also, we may even want to avoid
introducing the policy from the beginning. (Please note that this is
the first attempt to provide the missing piece of the details usage
about the M/O flags as a result of the rfc2462bis discussion. We'll
definitely need to discuss many technical details on the first
proposal.)
Regarding your second point, I'm even not sure about the point...from
the jabber log:
[18:28:54] <timchown> daley: m and o both indicate stateless info is available
[18:29:52] <timchown> daley: o and m policy names my be bad names. goals of original
flags was different
[18:30:00] <timchown> (my = may)
If that's just a naming issue, that's fine. I'm willing to rename
them if someone can offer better ones. But I don't understand the
comment on the "original goals". I'm even not sure what the "goals of
original flags" means, but, in my understanding, we are going to
describe the detailed and desired usage of the M/O flags as a BCP,
considering the latest standardization/deployment status. In that
sense, it's not surprising that the result is different from the
"goals of original flags". The important point is, IMO, that the
result makes sense and meets today's deployment scenario.
(Of course, since this is a (candidate of) derivative work from
rfc2462bis, we'll need to care about the "original intentions")
Thanks for your clarification in advance,
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
