>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 13:18:06 -0700,
>>>>> Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> So,
>> + I'd first like to confirm whether my understanding about the
>> 'design principle' is correct. If it's wrong, then I'm fine and
>> this concern will be resolved.
> I don't remember any ND design principals like this, nor can I find
> any in RFC2461 or it's update <draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-07.txt>.
> Further Section 9 "EXTENSIBILITY - OPTION PROCESSING" does not have
> any text limiting new options to the types you suggest. I hope this
> resolves your concern.
Hmm...I cannot find background information about the "design
principle" on the net, either. It may be just an misunderstanding of
mine, in which case, yes, the above concern is resolved (I might then
propose a DHCPv6 server address RA option:-).
But then I have a related question: why is this document supposed to
be an Experimental RFC, rather than a Proposed Standard? I originally
thought it was because the spec is going to be standardized against
the 'design principle' as a special exception.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
