Hi Jinmei, I am in agreement with your proposed changes. Regards Radhakrishnan ----- Original Message ----- From: <JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H (B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 6:13 AM Subject: Re: further clarifications on M/O flags in rfc2462bis
> Dear IPv6 folks, and especially Margaret, > > I've not seen any responses to the following proposal: > > >>>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:56:54 +0900, > >>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > 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. > > I'm happy if the silence means agreement, but I suspect others have > been simply too busy for other discussion items to read or comment on > it, since I thought the above proposal could be quite controversial. > > So, I made an experimental next revision of the rfc2462bis draft based > on this proposal and put it at: > http://www.jinmei.org/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-07beta1.txt > > Specifically, > > - this revision does not mention the M/O flags at all. > - this revision does not use the phrase "stateful" (except in change > logs). But I replaced the phrase with "DHCPv6" wherever > appropriate. For example, this revision says like: > > DAD is performed on all addresses, independent of whether they > are obtained via stateless autoconfiguration or DHCPv6. > > instead of saying "via stateful autoconfiguration". > > To make progress, I'd like to be sure if this approach is acceptable. > > If you have time, please check the proposal and the experimental next > revision, and let me know your opinion. If it's okay, I'm then going > to address other comments from Margaret (as the shepherding AD). > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
