Re: reference dependency (DS to PS) (Re: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6)

(Sorry for not responding sooner) > On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 20:10:13 -0500 (EST), > Suresh Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Don't if it is concrete or not but Section 4.2.4 of RFC2026 states >Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on >other standards

Re: reference dependency (DS to PS) (Re: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6)

Hi Jinmei, Don't if it is concrete or not but Section 4.2.4 of RFC2026 states Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced

Re: reference dependency (DS to PS) (Re: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6)

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H(B wrote: > > Jinmei - I mistyped and you guessed what I had intended to ask. Good catch > > and thanks for the clarification. > > > Can anyone supply a direct reference to an explicit statement that "a DS > > spec cannot ha

reference dependency (DS to PS) (Re: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6)

> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 03:00:08 -0500, > Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Jinmei - I mistyped and you guessed what I had intended to ask. Good catch > and thanks for the clarification. > Can anyone supply a direct reference to an explicit statement that "a DS > spec cannot have a

Re: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

Jinmei - I mistyped and you guessed what I had intended to ask. Good catch and thanks for the clarification. Can anyone supply a direct reference to an explicit statement that "a DS spec cannot have a normative reference to a PS spec."? - Ralph At 04:52 PM 3/4/2004 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2

RE: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

John - I agree that "the goal of 2462(-bis) is STATELESS ADDRESS AUTOCONFIG." However, the bits controlling use of stateless/stateful are also defined in RFC 2462bis, so RFC 2462bis goes a little beyond just defining how stateless address autoconfig. Invoking the camel's nose principle, and striv

RE: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

Hi Ralph, > John - I agree that "the goal of 2462(-bis) is STATELESS ADDRESS > AUTOCONFIG." However, the bits controlling use of stateless/stateful are > also defined in RFC 2462bis, so RFC 2462bis goes a little beyond just > defining how stateless address autoconfig. Invoking the camel's nose >

Re: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:33:23 -0500, > Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> In the wg meeting on Tuesday, several concerns were raised regarding >> this issue (and the proposed resolution). To summarize (some of) >> them, >> >> 1. the resolution proposes to say "the stateful protoc

Re: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

At 02:19 AM 3/4/2004 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote: In the wg meeting on Tuesday, several concerns were raised regarding this issue (and the proposed resolution). To summarize (some of) them, 1. the resolution proposes to say "the stateful protocol is DHCPv6"

RE: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

Jinmei, (B (B> So far, all the responses in this thread seem to support having (B> RFC3315 (DHCPv6) in rfc2462bis as an informative reference, and not (B> referring to the node-req draft. Is my understanding correct? (B (BYes, I think so. (B (B> I can live with this approach. But I also

Re: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

> On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 06:39:46 +0200, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> Personally, I don't think there's any need to refer to the >> node-req doc. > I agree. But I think we can even include a ref to DHCPv6 > as informative. I don't see how there can be a normative > reference to Stateful A

RE: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

Hi all, > Personally, I don't think there's any need to refer to the > node-req doc. I agree. But I think we can even include a ref to DHCPv6 as informative. I don't see how there can be a normative reference to Stateful Add Autoconf. if we are defining Stateless Add Autoconf. John LR¿¬(®

RE: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

Pekka, I suspect we are playing games with language, but ... > > The easiest solution to them would be to list RFC3315 as an > > informative reference. I don't know whether this is acceptable. > > According to Section 2.7 of draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07.txt, > > Normative references specify >

RE: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

> -Original Message- > From: JINMEI Tatuya / çæéå [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 11:24 AM > To: Dave Thaler > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6 > > >>>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:47:

Re: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:47:17 -0800, > "Dave Thaler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> But the first condition seems to me a bit subjective. Under which >> requirement can we decide a document must be read for a different >> document? >> >> The second condition is a bit clearer, but assuming

Re: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H(B wrote: [...] > The easiest solution to them would be to list RFC3315 as an > informative reference. I don't know whether this is acceptable. > According to Section 2.7 of draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07.txt, > Normative ref

RE: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

JINMEI Tatuya writes: [...] > The easiest solution to them would be to list RFC3315 as an > informative reference. I don't know whether this is acceptable. > According to Section 2.7 of draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07.txt, > Normative references specify > > - documents that must be read to unde

[rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

In the wg meeting on Tuesday, several concerns were raised regarding this issue (and the proposed resolution). To summarize (some of) them, 1. the resolution proposes to say "the stateful protocol is DHCPv6" clearly, without leaving other possibilities. This would require RFC3315 (DHCPv6)