Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-05.txt

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 05:53:21 +0300

Hi Thomas,

> [email-masked] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) writes:
> 
> > 	there was a big discussion in the recent IETF meeting 
> (don't remember
> > 	which one) and the consensus was to drop "you can omit DAD for
> > 	addresses with same IID" part from the DAD, IIRC (need to check
> > 	minutes).  if my memory is corret, my guess is that the node
> > 	requirement is more up-to-date on this issue.
> 
> I too seem to recall a discussion or two on this topic, even before
> vienna. But
> 
> 1) should node-requirements be the document that updates this, or
>    should addrconf be updated?
> 
> 2) If the former, the words in the current document aren't  explicit
>    enough. Especially given the following wording in
>    node-requirements:
> 
> >    This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and
> >    references RFCs for this purpose.  In case of any conflicting
> >    text, this document takes less precedence than the normative
> >    RFCs, unless additional clarifying text is included in this
> >    document.

My understanding was that we didn't want the Node Requirements document
be the bucket where we toss all of the fixes needed to various RFCs,
etc.  I assume that if addrconf needs updating, it should be done there,
however, I could put a note in the Node Req document.  I'm not dogmatic,
however, about this point - if people feel that Node Req is the right
place, then feel free to suggest text.

thanks,
John

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 07:19:39 -0400

> etc.

FWIW, I think this is right approach.

> I assume that if addrconf needs updating, it should be done there,

OK. At least this previous co-author is shamed into agreeing that
addr-conf document should be revved. First step is a list of items
that need fixing. I believe I have a start of a list squirreled away
somewhere.

Thomas