RE: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

[john.loughney@xxxxxxxxx]

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
> > 
> >   - documents that must be read to understand or implement the
> >     technology in the new RFC
> >   - documents whose technology must be present for the technology
> >     in the new RFC to work
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> I don't think this is a problem.  You don't have to understand DHCPv6 
> to ignore M/O bits -- which you only act upon IF you have implemented 
> DHCPv6 -- and then you understand it already :).

.. but the goal of 2462(-bis) is STATELESS ADDRESS AUTOCONFIG.  I don't think
that this document has ANY normative dependencies on Stateful Address
Autoconfig.  Re-reading the draft several times, I can only see that
DHCPv6 is informative, at best.

John

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