I think I mean the RDNSS option of RFC5006's standards-track successor. I believe the RDNSS option of draft-ietf-6man-dns-options-bis is formatted the same as the RDNSS option of RFC5006, but draft-ietf-6man-dns-options-bis has improved guidance for host handling of the option, especially in the presence of DHCPv6 DNS and other options. Barbara
> -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Brian Haberman > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 3:34 AM > To: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Issue 20: Node Requirements - DHC vs. RA text > > On 7/24/10 11:36 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, STARK, BARBARA H (ATTLABS) wrote: > > > >> I would prefer if nodes were required (MUST) to support one or the > other > >> mechanism for DNS config. Given SLAAC is a must, it would probably > make > >> the most sense to make rfc5006 the must. > > > > ++ > > > > Just for clarity... Do you mean RFC 5006 or its standards-track > successor draft-ietf-6man-dns-options-bis? > > Regards, > Brian > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
