I'm also happy with Bob's wording (but also with what Ralph and Thomas produced).
Bob's wording also leaves it to the DHCPv6 specifications as to how to do DHCPv6, which is far better than putting more specific details in RFC2461bis. But, again, I'm happy with either and do want to see this move forward. - Bernie > -----Original Message----- > From: Manfredi, Albert E [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 4:24 PM > To: Soliman, Hesham; IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis > > At the risk of being accused of dragging out this discussion > beyond the > 10 year mark, I'm in favor of Bob's wording. I agree with his > rationale > too. > > Bert > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Soliman, Hesham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 10:57 AM > > To: Bob Hinden; IPv6 Mailing List > > Subject: RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis > > > > Folks, > > > > Please take a look at Bob's text below. I'd like to suggest that > > we replace the current text in 2461bis with the one below. > > Any objections? I'll wait for another week before I can conclude > > that we agree on this, i.e. if no one responds. > > > > Hesham > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: > > > > > > M : > > > 1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag. > When set, it > > > indicates that addresses are available via Dynamic Host > > > Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6]. > > > > > > If the M flag is set, the O flag is redundant and can be > > > ignored because DHCPv6 will return all available > > > configuration > > > information. > > > > > > O : > > > 1-bit "Other configuration" flag. When set, it > > > indicates that > > > other configuration information is available via DHCPv6. > > > Examples of such information are DNS-related > > information or > > > information on other servers within the network. > > > > > > Note: If neither M nor O flags are set this > indicates that no > > > information is available via DHCP. > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > I made the assumption that from the clients point of view, > > > DHCPv6 and > > > DHCPv6-lite are equivalent and didn't call out DHCPv6-lite > > > separately > > > in the O flag description. Please correct me if I am wrong > > > about this. > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > Bob > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
