>>>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:26:26 +1100,
>>>>> Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Okay, so this is what was referred to in the meeting today:
> How about a paragraph (maybe somewhere else) saying:
> "... It is possible that a host may receive a solicitation or a router
> advertisement without a link-layer address option included.
> These messages will not create or update neighbor cache entries,
> except with respect to the IsRouter flag as specified in
> Sections XXX and YYY.
> If a neighbour cache entry does not exist for the source of such a
> message, Address Resolution will be required before unicast
> communications with that address to begin.
> This is particularly relevant for unicast responses to
> solicitations where an additional packet exchange is required for
> advertisement delivery.
> ..."
I can live with this approach, but I responded to this message in the
mailing list with a slightly different flavor (attached below).
I don't have a strong opinion on either way, and leave it to you,
Hesham (as document editor), or the wg as a whole.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:27:02 +1100,
>>>>> Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It has been a bit confusing with crossing e-mails and
> timezone differences.
Sorry, I actually noticed the possible confusion when I was writing
the messages, but I simply let it go..
> I think that there's agreement for clarification.
Yes, I think so.
> I think that people agree what needs to be clarified.
Ditto.
> I'm not sure if it's decided where to put the clarification
> (but I don't care myself, so long as everyone else agrees)
Actually, I'm not sure, either.
> I'm not sure if there is a text which is agreed.
> (I've heard more harmonious responses in later text, but
> there were two or three fairly related pieces of text going round).
Again, I'm not sure, either. But I agreed on the Christian's second
proposal **if we agree on the need for revising Section 6.2.6**.
I don't have a strong preference on how to fix the issue, but if I
were to ask, I'd
- at least add a general note about what the node should do when it
receives an unsolicited ND message (NS, RS, RA, Redirect) without
LLAO and does not have a corresponding neighbor cache. I don't care
about the place, but I'd probably use Section 7.3.3, and
- updated APPENDIX C (state machine) accordingly, and
- (optionally) describe a bit more details of each case (e.g., add
clarification 6.2.6 for the RS case)
Hope this helps,
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--- End Message ---
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
