Hello, Based on a recent discussion on rfc2462bis with Margaret in a part of her AD review results, I now think we'll need further clarifications on the M/O flags.
As I said in a previous response to Margaret, we have decided and made the following change to rfc2462bis: 1. remove some "mandatory" wording on these flags and clarify that these flags are just hints of availability of the corresponding services (DHCPv6). 2. leave more details to other document(s) The basic background of this decision is that we've not reached a matured level for a DS on deployment experiences of DHCPv6. (see http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg02372.html to get the entire message with the context of the discussion) I'm quite sure that we saw a clear consensus on the basic idea. But as a result, we have a vague reference to the "other document", without specifying a particular document in the references section. This may make rfc2462bis "incomplete". There is an ongoing work on the detailed usage of the M/O flags, and we could refer to that document from rfc2462bis. However, the only "ongoing work" is currently just an individual document, and I'm not sure how long it takes to be completed, or even whether we adopt it as a wg item in the first place. This would make the reference from rfc2462bis unstable and/or would cause another delay for rfc2462bis. We need to endure the delay if it's inevitable. However, as Margaret indicated, most part of rfc2462bis is independent from the usage of the M/O flags. In fact, creating a link-local/global address by the stateless autoconfiguration procedure, DAD, or address lifetime management are basically all independent from how we use the M/O flags. Also, whether we invoke DHCPv6 when receiving an RA with the M flag being ON does not affect whether we perform stateless address autoconfiguration when receiving an RA with some prefix information, or vice versa. In some cases (e.g., for DAD), we need to consider addresses allocated via DHCPv6 as well as addresses configured through stateless configuration. However, I believe we can simply say "addresses allocated via DHCPv6" in such cases without mentioning the M/O flags. So, I now tend to propose the following approach: - clearly saying in rfc2462bis "it does not specify the use of the M/O flags." (not mentioning other documents). Specifically, remove the 7th paragraph of Section 4 (beginning with "The details of how a host may use the M flag...") - also clarifying in rfc2462bis that the protocol described in rfc2462bis should be performed independently from these flags (in a clearer way). (and, if we take this idea, the "separate document", whatever it is, should become a PS instead of a BCP as we originally planned). Please note that this is NOT an attempt to "remove" or "deprecate" the M/O flags. We've already discussed the idea and rejected it, and I don't see a reason for revisiting the past arguments. This is an attempt to make rfc2462bis more self-contained and more matured as a DS, considering the current implementation/deployment experiences of the M/O flags and the other parts of the original RFC2462. Still, this will require non-trivial changes to the current version of rfc2462bis, so I'd like to get explicit agreement/disagreement from the working group. Thanks, 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
