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

RE: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6



Jinmei,

> So far, all the responses in this thread seem to support having
> RFC3315 (DHCPv6) in rfc2462bis as an informative reference, and not
> referring to the node-req draft.  Is my understanding correct?

Yes, I think so.
 
> I can live with this approach.  But I also think it is helpful to
> mention like "what is the stateful protocol (and propbably the
> mandatory level to implement it) is beyond the scope of rfc2462bis and
> is specified in a separate document".  Otherwise, readers would
> continue to wonder what the stateful protocol is while we could
> actually answer the question.

How about:

  This document does not define stateful address autoconfiguration, which
  is specified in a seperate document [informative reference here].

> In summary, I'd like to propose
> 
> - in the body of rfc2462bis, we do not explicitly say what the
>   stateful protocol is but mention that it is specified in a separate
>   document.
> - regarding reference, we only list RFC3315 as an informative
>   reference.  (and we probably need some additional text in the body
>   that refers to the reference)
> 
> Does this make sense?

I'm happy with it.

John

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