I believe Brian's suggestion is congruent with Ralphs text also. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Brian Haberman > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 11:06 AM > To: Tim Chown > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: SHOULD or MAY for invoking DHCP services using M/O flags > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
