Hi Ralph,
I was being imprecise (as usual).
I apologize for mis-representing the role of the RFC.
Ralph Droms wrote:
Greg - I have one minor disagreement with your explanation:
At 06:17 PM 8/11/2004 +1000, Greg Daley wrote:
Hi Jinmei,
JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:16:03 +1000, Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
It's important to relize though that a host doesn't invoke RFC 3736 procedures though. The host only cares that it wants to do an Information-Request. 3736 is an implementation hint for DHCPv6 servers and relays, not hosts.
Greg
RFC 3736 doesn't describe procedures or a distinct protocol, per se. It is intended to describe that part of the protocol that a server or a host must implement if all it intends to support is the Information-Request message exchange.
After reading this thread, I am leaning toward favoring the use of the message exchanges (or some defined shorthand) rather than "RFC 3315" and "RFC 3736" to describe the alternatives.
I think that's one of my main ideas. We're talking about required behaviours, not which RFC they belong to. The overlap in capabilities between the documents is indeed the issue.
The role of the host in performing DHCP (when using RAs for DHCP initiation) isn't prescribed by the fact that it has implemented 'RFC3736', but the advertised capabilities for the rotuer, and what the host is able to do itself.
Greg
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
