Hi Jinmei
JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:51:59 +1000,
Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
It's important to relize though that a host doesn't invoke
RFC 3736 procedures though. The host only cares that it wants to
do an Information-Request. 3736 is an implementation hint f
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:51:59 +1000,
> Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> It's important to relize though that a host doesn't invoke
>>> RFC 3736 procedures though. The host only cares that it wants to
>>> do an Information-Request. 3736 is an implementation hint for
>>> DHCPv6 s
Hi Jinmei,
JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:17:31 +1000,
Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
It's important to relize though that a host doesn't invoke
RFC 3736 procedures though. The host only cares that it wants to
do an Information-Request. 3736 is an implementation hint
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:30:52 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> It's important to relize though that a host doesn't invoke
>> RFC 3736 procedures though. The host only cares that it wants to
>> do an Information-Request. 3736 is an implementation hint for
>> DHCPv6 se
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:17:31 +1000,
> Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It's important to relize though that a host doesn't invoke
> RFC 3736 procedures though. The host only cares that it wants to
> do an Information-Request. 3736 is an implementation hint for
> DHCPv6 servers a
Hi Daniel,
S. Daniel Park wrote:
=> Right, but there is no need to have the O flag off. To me RFC 3736 is
something useful for server vendors and should not be associated with
setting the O flag.
You mean we can always set O flag ? I don't make sense why RFC3736
should not be associated with sett
Hi Syam,
Syam Madanapalli wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Syam Madanapalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Soohong Daniel Park"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: comments o
I've catched one minor missing of 2461bis when responding M/O flags.
[snip]
O 1-bit "Other stateful configuration" flag. When
set, it indicates that [DHCPv6-lite] is available
for autoconfiguration of other (non-address)
information
> => Right, but there is no need to have the O flag off. To me RFC 3736 is
(B> something useful for server vendors and should not be associated with
(B> setting the O flag.
(B
(BYou mean we can always set O flag ? I don't make sense why RFC3736
(Bshould not be associated with setting the O fl
Hi Daniel,
S. Daniel Park wrote:
This is a bit of a rant.
Please accept my apologies. I'm quite concerned by
the form of the document at the moment, although I
think that the function needs to be available.
Not at all,,,Thanks your comments as well...:-)
At this stage, I think that the policy sec
> This is a bit of a rant.
> Please accept my apologies. I'm quite concerned by
> the form of the document at the moment, although I
> think that the function needs to be available.
Not at all,,,Thanks your comments as well...:-)
> At this stage, I think that the policy section is OK except
> for
Thomas,
> IMO, what you should do is write an ID, and take it to the appropriate
> WG. If you can't find interest, you probably should drop the idea.
If the WG accepts my idea or IESG approves it as an individual
draft, it becomes an internal (for IETF) request and then point
3 of section 6.1 doe
I have a silly question below.
(B
(B
(B > I now feel I get understanding the point...to make it sure,
(B > let me try
(B > to rephrase that.
(B >
(B > Assume we have a "stateful" DHCPv6 server (that implements RFC3315)
(B > running. The server should support both
(B > Solicit/Advertise/
- Original Message -
From: "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Syam Madanapalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Soohong Daniel Park"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: comments on draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-
Hi Jinmei,
JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:16:03 +1000,
Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
This is a bit of a rant.
Please accept my apologies. I'm quite concerned by
the form of the document at the moment, although I
think that the function needs to be available.
No need t
15 matches
Mail list logo
