Subject: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-01.txt

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:32:07 -0500

Today in v6ops I think I heard that compliance to the ND M bit being set
is optional.  That I think is wrong.  But the node reqs doc states that
dhcpv6 is unconditionally optional which is probably correct because
stateful may not imply dhcpv6 today.  But if the M bit is set the host
node (non router) must look for a stateful node.  We need to get this
right.

P.S. John - I will have all my input on this to you in the next few
weeks.  But it looks real good. I like the terminology too.

Regards.

/jim
[Honor, Commitment, Integrity]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:09:43 +0000

Hi Jim, 

I find it hard to tell if you mean it is wrong (incorrect) or
wrong (not the right way to go).  

about the current status though, 

section 5.4.5 of RFC 2462 mentions that a node which receives the
M flag goes should undertake stateful address configuration. 
there is no MUST requirement in that section, though section 5.5 
does say 

"the processing described below MUST be enabled by default"

If the intention was that nodes which have DHCP/managed capability
support this when the M flag is set, it's unclear. At the moment,
it looks optional to implementors.

Does it require update? Comments?

Greg

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:55:38 -0500

There may be some additional discussion about the 'M' and 'O' bits during 
my slot in the ipv6 WG meeting Thu AM.

- Ralph