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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 02:52:07 +0200

Hi Jim,

> 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.

Glad you think that the document looks good.  Review it & let me know
what you think - especially suggest what text you think is needed for
the M bit.

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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------