On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 16:12 +0200, Fernando Gont wrote: > I'm curious about why the corresponding text was removed. In particular > when at the time (2007) the DNS options was not yet widely implemented, > and hence you *needed* DHCPv6 to learn the addresses of recursive DNS > servers dynamically.
Me too!
The RFC4862 says
"Removed the text regarding the M and O flags, considering the
maturity of implementations and operational experiences.
ManagedFlag and OtherConfigFlag were removed accordingly. (Note
that this change does not mean the use of these flags is
deprecated.)"
The only way I can interpret this is "people are doing whatever the hell
they like with these flags, and some of those implementations are pretty
well-established, so we are not going to try to define how the flags
should be used because no matter what we say, it will conflict with the
way someone out there is doing things. However, people should definitely
still use these flags! We aren't taking them away, we're just refusing
to define how they should be used."
It seems a strange thing to say, so maybe my interpretation is wrong :-)
Regards, K.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
GPG fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017
Old fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
