On Oct 17, 2008, at 4:21 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
1. Is the following text an accurate summary of the previous IETF
consensus on the definition and use of M/O bits:
The M/O flags indicate the availability of DHCPv6 service for
address assignment and other configuration information,
respectively. The IPv6 specifications make no requirements on the
behavior of DHCPv6 clients in response to the values of the M/O
flags received in RAs.
It seems like it is, yes.
2. Does the IETF choose to continue to accept this consensus or should
the definition of client behavior in response to the M/O flags be
revisited?
I think the current spec is vague, and therefore harmful to
interoperability. So I'd like the IETF to consider changing it.
2. NO: How does the IETF want to change this consensus and how should
the
change process be conducted?
There have been some suggestions for changes to the current
consensus
behavior:
* Deprecate the M/O flags; require that future DHCPv6 clients ignore
the M/O flags; require that routers send RAs with M/O flags set to 1
This would be my preference.
* Revert to previous definitions and behaviors in RFC 286*
I think this is a bad idea, but if the consensus is to go this way
then we need to tweak what is said in the old RFCs, because what they
said still wasn't very helpful.
* draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt
I think this draft nicely summarizes the problem, but that the
proposed solution isn't ready for prime time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
