[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails)



Hi Tim,

> There is a minor discrepancy in text between 2461 and 2462 that could
> perhaps be clarified in the -bis work for those texts.   This is regarding 
> the M flag referring to addresses and other options, or just addresses.
> Three parts of the texts have different nuances:
> 
> a) 2461 section 4.2 says M flag means hosts use the stateful protocol
>    for address assigment, and O flag means hosts used the stateful protocol
>    for other (non-address) information.
> 
> b) Then in 2462 it says in Section 4 (p.9) and Section 5.2 (p.11) again
>    that a "managed address configuration" flag indicates whether hosts should 
>    use stateful autoconfiguration to obtain addresses and an "other stateful
>    configuration" flag indicates whether hosts should use stateful 
>    autoconfiguration to obtain additional information (excluding addresses).
> 
> c) But then in 5.5.3 of 2462 the RA processing text states what I expect
>    most (all?) implementations actually do:  "If the value of ManagedFlag 
>    changes from FALSE to TRUE ...  the host should invoke the stateful address 
>    autoconfiguration protocol, requesting both address information and other 
>    information." (i.e. for both information)
> 
> So the question is should the wording of (a) and (b) be changed to reflect
> the processing text of (c)?  On their own, (a) and (b) suggest that to get
> the behaviour of (c) *both* the M and O bits should be set, but (c) states
> that only the M bit need be set for full stateful autoconfiguration. 

I think that (c) is the correct behavior - should you suggest text
for 2461 & 2462?

John

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------