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

Re: further clarifications on M/O flags in rfc2462bis

Dear IPv6 folks, and especially Margaret,

I've not seen any responses to the following proposal:

>>>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:56:54 +0900, 
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <jinmei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

> So, I now tend to propose the following approach:

> - clearly saying in rfc2462bis "it does not specify the use of the M/O
>   flags." (not mentioning other documents).  Specifically, remove the
>   7th paragraph of Section 4 (beginning with "The details of how a
>   host may use the M flag...")
> - also clarifying in rfc2462bis that the protocol described in
>   rfc2462bis should be performed independently from these flags (in a
>   clearer way).

> (and, if we take this idea, the "separate document", whatever it is,
> should become a PS instead of a BCP as we originally planned).

> Please note that this is NOT an attempt to "remove" or "deprecate" the
> M/O flags.  We've already discussed the idea and rejected it, and I
> don't see a reason for revisiting the past arguments.  This is an
> attempt to make rfc2462bis more self-contained and more matured as a
> DS, considering the current implementation/deployment experiences of
> the M/O flags and the other parts of the original RFC2462.

> Still, this will require non-trivial changes to the current version of
> rfc2462bis, so I'd like to get explicit agreement/disagreement from
> the working group.

I'm happy if the silence means agreement, but I suspect others have
been simply too busy for other discussion items to read or comment on
it, since I thought the above proposal could be quite controversial.

So, I made an experimental next revision of the rfc2462bis draft based
on this proposal and put it at:


- this revision does not mention the M/O flags at all.
- this revision does not use the phrase "stateful" (except in change
  logs).  But I replaced the phrase with "DHCPv6" wherever
  appropriate.  For example, this revision says like:

     DAD is performed on all addresses, independent of whether they
     are obtained via stateless autoconfiguration or DHCPv6.
  instead of saying "via stateful autoconfiguration".

To make progress, I'd like to be sure if this approach is acceptable.

If you have time, please check the proposal and the experimental next
revision, and let me know your opinion.  If it's okay, I'm then going
to address other comments from Margaret (as the shepherding AD).


					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.

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