Subject: Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

From: Tim Hartrick <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Apr 2006 10:21:28 -0700

Thomas,

On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 06:33, Thomas Narten wrote:
> 
> Chairs, Perhaps we need to just accept that we can't get consensus on
> revised wording for the M&O bits and leave the text unchanged
> relative to RFC2461?
> 
> It's long past time for getting closure on this issue and moving on,
> yet we continue to have the same back-and-forth on the mailing
> list. :-(
> 

I agree with this.  It really boggles the mind that this conversation
has occurred and is still going on at least 10 years after I saw the
first argument about the M&O bits.  We need to stop believing that these
bits can force the hosts on a network to implement something or if they
have implemented it, enable something.  They can't.  Jeeze, what a sorry
state of affairs.

Tim Hartrick

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:06:25 -0700

Hi,

[speaking without any chair hat on]

> have implemented it, enable something.  They can't.  Jeeze, what a  

While it probably would have been more fun if there were more bits to  
argue about (or less bits?), I think there is still some value in  
trying to clarify the bits.  Also, as Jinmei points out RFC2362bis  
removed the definition.

I think that if we change the text to be more descriptive about what  
the bits are instead of trying to define an action an implementation  
should take, it might help get to consensus.  I tried to remove as  
much text as possible.

For example:

    M :
         1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag.  When set, it
         indicates that addresses are available via Dynamic Host
         Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6].

         If the M flag is set, the O flag is redundant and can be
         ignored because DHCPv6 will return all available configuration
         information.

     O :
         1-bit "Other configuration" flag.  When set, it indicates that
         other configuration information is available via DHCPv6.
         Examples of such information are DNS-related information or
         information on other servers within the network.

     Note: If neither M nor O flags are set this indicates that no
     information is available via DHCP.

-----

I made the assumption that from the clients point of view, DHCPv6 and  
DHCPv6-lite are equivalent and didn't call out DHCPv6-lite separately  
in the O flag description.  Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Comments?

Bob