Brian - I think this thread reasonably supports the conclusion that
the text in the RFCs does not clearly capture the consensus reached of
the IETF. In my opinion, some sort of additional information is
needed because I've gotten questions on exactly this issue. I think
the problem can
Thomas - you wrote:
unless something has
changed (and I have seen no indication of this), the WG should not
take on this topic or discuss it further because there is no consensus
to make any changes.
One part of the situation that may have changed - or, perhaps, wasn't
considered - is the
: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 9:31 AM
To: Thomas Narten
Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; DHC WG; IPV6 List
Mailing; Bernie Volz (volz); Brzozowski John
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Request for Advices on the draft
draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt
Thomas - you wrote:
unless
: [dhcwg] Request for Advices on the draft
draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt
Bernie - my suggested clarifications help the situation in that the
flags are currently underspecified (in fact, IMHO, confusingly
specific) relative to the previous consensus about their definition.
Deprecating the bits would
List Mailing; Brzozowski John
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Request for Advices on the draft
draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt
Bernie - my suggested clarifications help the situation in that the
flags are currently underspecified (in fact, IMHO, confusingly
specific) relative to the previous consensus about
Message-
From: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 9:31 AM
To: Thomas Narten
Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; DHC WG; IPV6 List
Mailing; Bernie Volz (volz); Brzozowski John
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Request for Advices on the draft
draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt
On Sep 18, 2008, at 6:01 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Perhaps this point might be a major conflict. As we both know,
consecutive DHCPv6 SOLICIT messages are sent exponentially
back-offed if no valid replies are received within timeouts. Since
this always holds, I would like to ask you why M/O
