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

Re: Stateful != M , Stateless != O

Hi Ralph,

I was being imprecise (as usual).

I apologize for mis-representing the role of the RFC.

Ralph Droms wrote:
> Greg - I have one minor disagreement with your explanation:
> At 06:17 PM 8/11/2004 +1000, Greg Daley wrote:
>> Hi Jinmei,
>> JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:16:03 +1000, Greg Daley 
>>>>>>>> <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au> said:
>> It's important to relize though that a host doesn't invoke
>> RFC 3736 procedures though.  The host only cares that it wants to
>> do an Information-Request.  3736 is an implementation hint for
>> DHCPv6 servers and relays, not hosts.
>> Greg
> RFC 3736 doesn't describe procedures or a distinct protocol, per se.  It is
> intended to describe that part of the protocol that a server or a host must
> implement if all it intends to support is the Information-Request message
> exchange.
> After reading this thread, I am leaning toward favoring the use of the
> message exchanges (or some defined shorthand) rather than "RFC 3315" and
> "RFC 3736" to describe the alternatives.

I think that's one of my main ideas.
We're talking about required behaviours, not which
RFC they belong to.  The overlap in capabilities
between the documents is indeed the issue.

The role of the host in performing DHCP (when using RAs
for DHCP initiation) isn't prescribed by the fact
that it has implemented 'RFC3736', but the advertised
capabilities for the rotuer, and what the host is able to
do itself.


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