Re: further clarifications on M/O flags in rfc2462bis

[Radhakrishnan Suryanarayanan <rkrishnan.s@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jinmei,
  I am in agreement with your proposed changes.

Regards
Radhakrishnan
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H (B <jinmei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)>
To: <ipv6@xxxxxxxx>; <margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 6:13 AM
Subject: 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:
> http://www.jinmei.org/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-07beta1.txt
>
> Specifically,
>
> - 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).
>
> Thanks,
>
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> Communication Platform Lab.
> Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
> jinmei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@xxxxxxxx
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>


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