JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?=
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we respect both the original sense of RFC2462 and our consensus
> about the semantics separation of the M/O flags, I believe the right
> solution is the following:
I think we should be careful NOT to get hung up on what the original
intent of the M/O bits were, but focus on what the right behavior
should be, given what we know now/today, and given the DHC protocols
we actually have.
The M/O bits were defined before we had DHCPv6 specified. I'd argue
that the M/O bits are a classic example of defining protocol/bits
before we really had a clear understanding of how they would be used,
what the semantics should be or what the actual protocols would be
that get invoked as a result of those bits.
Surprise, surprise, when one invents protocols/mechanisms in such
cases, we often get the details wrong.
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
