RE: Stateful != M , Stateless != O

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@xxxxxx>]

Well put John I had forgotten about that.  So Tim this answers a lot of
your questions.

The bottom line is DHCPv6 is for stateful address configuration and a by
product is prefix delegation.  How the market uses that is not our
concern we need to specify for both.

/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of john.loughney@nokia.com
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 6:27 AM
> To: jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp; tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Stateful != M , Stateless != O
> 
> Tim &Jinmei,
> 
> > > But we need to be careful too in that the Node 
> Requirements draft is 
> > > just coming out of the oven and was baked using a different
> > recipe :)
> > 
> > That's perhaps true, though I don't think there will be a big gap 
> > between the description of the node-req document and 
> (future versions
> > of) the M/O document.
> 
> Node Requirements is just an informational document, so it 
> should not be considered Normative in any sense.  If there is 
> a discrepancy between an informational and a PS/DS/FS then 
> the standard wins out.  I don't think we really need to wory 
> about this.
> 
> John
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

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