at least have discussion where all agree for sure. not clear a document is needed if we can put it in dhc or possibly biz update to 2462 yet again :----) /jim
> -----Original Message----- > From: Syam Madanapalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 1:41 PM > To: ipv6@ietf.org; dhcwg@ietf.org > Cc: Ted Lemon; Bound, Jim; Iljitsch van Beijnum; Ralph Droms > (rdroms); Bernie Volz (volz); Thomas Narten; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RE: purpose of m/o bit > > Isn't it such a long idscussion a proof for the confusion in > understanding the M/O > bits? Instead of leaving the discussion here, thinking that there is > no confusion or > be fore taking any radical changes (either discarding M or O > or both flags, or > making changes to the DHCPv6 protocols), it is better to > document the inteded > use of M/O flags as an informational document, so that we > will have uniform > implementations in th future. I am sure this (intended use of M/O > flags) is very > obvious for some people here, but definitely help many others. Also > this information > will be handy for the implementer. > > - Syam > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
