picking up an old thread.
[...]
> - DHCP and stateless autoconf. This document is probably not the
> right place to discuss the M&O bits, but IMO this document should
> say more about DHCP vs. stateless and the issues surrounding when
> to implement one or the other. Not to mandate them. A
-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-03.txt
> - proper status of this document (info vs. BCP) and whether this
>document can update any existing RFC
There's a standards-track beast defined in section 3.2 of RFC2026 as an
"Applicability Statement":
" An Applicability Statemen
Brian,
- proper status of this document (info vs. BCP) and whether this
document can update any existing RFC
There's a standards-track beast defined in section 3.2 of RFC2026 as
an
"Applicability Statement":
" An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what
circumstances, o
A handful of comments.
Perhaps Section 12 of any -04 version can update it's 'open issue'
list to reflect what's below and anything else on the table? And
are we content that the other things listed currently in section 12
have been answered?
Can we say anything stronger for MLDv2 support? It
f Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: mardi 21 juillet 2009 03:29
> To: Thomas Narten
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Node requirements: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-03.txt
>
>
> > - proper status of this document (info vs. BCP) and whether this
> >document can update an
> - proper status of this document (info vs. BCP) and whether this
>document can update any existing RFC
There's a standards-track beast defined in section 3.2 of RFC2026 as an
"Applicability Statement":
" An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what
circumstances, one or mo
Thomas,
Firstly, thanks for taking this on!
Of course, 2462 is widely implemented, and I'd strongly recommend that
devices should implement it (though I can think of some
exceptions). But we do have a fundmanental question about whether the
IPv6 Node Requirements document can make new requireme
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:nar...@us.ibm.com]
> How's this to drive the point home further... 2461 (Neighbor
> Discovery) is NOT mandated. It is only listed as a SHOULD. (This is
> because some link layers might not need all parts of ND. But this has
> turned out t
writes:
> Thomas,
> > raises an intersting point. This document (and RFC 4294) mandate
> > (MUST) that hosts implement stateless autoconfiguration. This
> > despite that this document is only informational, and no where in
> > standards track RFCs is stateless autoconf mandated. This tak
Thomas,
> raises an intersting point. This document (and RFC 4294) mandate
> (MUST) that hosts implement stateless autoconfiguration. This
> despite that this document is only informational, and no where in
> standards track RFCs is stateless autoconf mandated. This takes us
How about RFC
10 matches
Mail list logo
