Hi Daniel,

S. Daniel Park wrote:
This is a bit of a rant.
Please accept my apologies. I'm quite concerned by
the form of the document at the moment, although I
think that the function needs to be available.


Not at all,,,Thanks your comments as well...:-)


At this stage, I think that the policy section is OK except
for the imprecise usage of the terms 'stateless' and 'stateful'.


Well, when we wrote this draft, I added one open issue as below;
=====
Clarify the possible confusion coming from the past that [RFC
3736] calls itself as stateless while [2462bis] makes use of it as stateful. =====


Originally 3736's name of stateless DHCPv6 is not fortunate.

Anyway we will try to clarify these terms in this draft.

I don't have a problem with 3736's name since it is a server implementation description.

We're not interested in what server is available. As hosts,
we're only interested in what capabilities are supported on
this network.

The existing names "Managed Addresses"  and "Other Configuration"
are aimed at what capabilities are available.
They also map directly to configuration procedures available
to the host (Renew/Request/Rebind  or  Information-Request).

Therefore discussion of stateful or stateless is not relevant
to the host.

We need to concentrate on the capabilities which are advertised
to the host, rather than the individual implementations on
servers.

Certainly, we need to indicate which servers would allow
particular flag combinations.  This is quite different to
the effect of these flags on the hosts.

I'd suggest that all descriptions of stateless and stateful
are kept to one section about server implementations.

The rest should aim at what's advertised, the capabilities
advertised and available to the hosts when particular flags are
set, and the operations undertaken by hosts when they wish
to act on these flags.

Greg


-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to