Tim Chown wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 10:34:39AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Following the discussions, it isn't entirely clear to me why we could need to open this issue. I think that there is concensus for keeping it as is (as described in Christian's mail).
Am I missing something?
My impression is that the discussion stems from the newly reached consensus
(since the original semantics were defined in 2462) that M=1 implies that RFC3315 functionality is available and O=1 implies that RFC3736 functionality is available. With RFC3736 being a subset of RFC3315, it is thus on first
glance "odd" that you can have M=1, O=0, when M=1 implies RFC3736 support is there, as a subset of RFC3315.
I would like to see the wording reflect the concept that M=1 indicates that DHCPv6 Solicit, Advertise, Request, and Response are available and O=1 indicates that Info-Request and Info-Response are available. That way, the flags are not tied to an RFC but rather to a functionality offered by the administrative authority.
Regards, Brian
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
