(cc'ing the dhcwg list) >>>>> On Fri, 20 May 2005 13:24:26 -0400, >>>>> Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Stepping up a level (and this also reflects my thinking after a > private exchange with Ralph/Bernie - but not necessarily their > thinking!)... > I think the M/O bits (in retrospect) have turned out to be more > trouble than they are worth. Indeed, they seem to be mostly just > confusing. Thus, maybe we should work towards removing them > completely. As a meta thought, I cannot agree more. In fact, the points you showed are (almost) exactly what I wanted to make when we first discussed the M/O flags issue in the rfc2462bis work (but you seem to express the points much better than I did). We actually once considered this option, whereas we didn't see some of the relevant points we now know. See, for example, a very long thread a year ago: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg02285.html As you can see in the thread archive, there was a strong push-back against the idea of removing these flags (while some others supported the idea). Then we finally decided to not remove the flags after a heated discussion. So, I'm wondering whether we can now really convince those who opposed to the idea. One additional meta note: even if we now decide to remove the flags, it wouldn't affect rfc2462bis, since it does not mention the flags at all. However, the decision would require a non-trivial (while not so big) change to rfc2461bis, which contains these flags in the RA message format and a brief description of these flags. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
