Subject: Re: further clarifications on M/O flags in rfc2462bis

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 09:43:13 +0900

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 <[email-masked]> 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.
					[email-masked]

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

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 07:34:04 +0200 (EET)

> to address other comments from Margaret (as the shepherding AD).

I did not comment on this first, as this seemed like an obviously the 
right (and only) way to go.  It still does :).

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 07:14:24 -0500

HI Jinmei,

Thank you for making these changes.  The changes you've made do a 
very good job of reflecting my feedback.  I believe that the document 
is much clearer and more concise with the changes you have made, and 
the document with the changes is acceptable to me.  Do you agree that 
these changes have made the document clearer?  Any concerns about 
them?

I also agree with you that it would be good to get some WG feedback 
on these changes.  Does anyone else have an opinion about them, one 
way or the other?

I did notice one minor, editorial nit that you may want to fix before 
posting the draft.  The first occurence of DHCPv6 should be expanded:

OLD:
DHCPv6 [RFC3315]

NEW:
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315].

But, if you don't get a chance to do that, I believe that the RFC 
Editor will do it for you.

Thanks,
Margaret

At 9:43 AM +0900 11/4/04, JINMEI Tatuya /

---

From: Radhakrishnan Suryanarayanan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:00:13 +0530

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

Regards
Radhakrishnan

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:43:07 -0500

<chair hat off>

On Nov 4, 2004, at 7:14, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

>
> HI Jinmei,
>
> Thank you for making these changes.  The changes you've made do a very 
> good job of reflecting my feedback.  I believe that the document is 
> much clearer and more concise with the changes you have made, and the 
> document with the changes is acceptable to me.  Do you agree that 
> I also agree with you that it would be good to get some WG feedback on 
> these changes.  Does anyone else have an opinion about them, one way 
> or the other?
>
>

I have no problems with these changes.

<chair hat on>

We do have a slot allocated in DC for discussion of 2462bis.  That can
be used to gauge consensus on these changes.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 03:39:29 +0900

>>>>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 07:14:24 -0500, 
>>>>> Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]> said:

> these changes have made the document clearer?  Any concerns about 

No (to your last question), I'm perfectly happy with these changes.
In fact, I personally wanted to make changes like those but did not so
as a compromise.  But the situation has been changed since then (e.g.,
at least one I-D clarifying the M/O bit appeared), so it may make
sense to revisit the issue again.

> Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315].

Thanks, but don't you actually mean this one?

 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315].

(At least RFC3315 does not call itself "Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol version 6").

> Editor will do it for you.

I'll incorporate the change in the next revision.  In any event, I
won't be able to submit it until the cut-off period is over.

					JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:57:56 -0500

At 3:39 AM +0900 11/5/04, JINMEI Tatuya / 
>(At least RFC3315 does not call itself "Dynamic Host Configuration

You are correct.  Sorry for the mistake.

Margaret