JINMEI wrote:
I generally agree with the sense of the proposed text. Thanks for the proposal.
In the context of rfc2462bis, however, I'm afraid the suggested text
may carry too strong an implication. That is, it will explicitly
affect existing implementations by specifying a concrete behavior with
an RFC2119 keyword.
Ok. Didn't realize this.
So, it may make more sense just to provide related consideration (but not a requirement for implementations), e.g.:
[...] However, it is not considered a fatal error if information received from multiple sources is inconsistent. Hosts accept the union of all information received via the stateless protocol and DHCPv6.
If inconsistent information is learned from different sources, an implementation may want to give information learned securely higher precedence over information learned without protection. For instance, Section 8 of RFC 3971 discusses how to deal with information learned through Secure ND conflicting with information learned through plain ND. The same discussion can apply to the preference between information learned through plan ND and information learned via secured DHCPv6, and so on.
In any case, if there is no security difference, the most recently obtained values SHOULD have precedence over information learned earlier.
What do you (and others, Allison in particular) think?
Ok for me.
--Jari
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
