> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 08:36:42 +0200,
> "Christian Strauf (JOIN)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 1. the original proposed text of mine
>> 2. the new proposed text of mine
>> 3. the text you proposed
> I can live with 1.) for the moment because I agree that it's not within
> the scope of rfc
> Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm afraid the text you proposed will
> simply make the specification unnecessarily ambiguous.
Yes, you're probably right, it should be a little less ambiguous.
> I'd like to repeat my points, which are:
>
> 1. I personally do not think it makes sense to update th
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 08:50:45 +0200,
> "Christian Strauf (JOIN)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Besides, this part of the specification seems a bit too specific about
>> stateful autoconfiguration, considering we are now going to separate
>> particular behavior on the stateful configuratio
Jinmei,
> That is, the valid and preferred lifetimes of an address configured by
> DHCPv6 (the "stateful" protocol) can be updated by succeeding RAs.
> Does this really make sense? For example, consider the following
> scenario:
I personally think that it makes sense to keep this specification. T
I've found one more thing that may need a discussion on the
relationship between rfc2462bis and stateful address autoconfiguration
(DHCPv6).
RFC2462 currently says in Section 5.5.3 that
e) If the advertised prefix matches the prefix of an autoconfigured
address (i.e., one obtained via
