Subject: IPv6 WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-01.txt

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 09:43:39 -0500

All,
      This begins a 2 week IPv6 working group last call on recycling:

	Title		: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)
	Author(s)	: T. Narten, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-01.txt
	Pages	: 86
	Date		: 2004-10-29

at Draft Standard.  Substantive comments should be directed to
the mailing list.  Editorial comments can be sent to the document
editor.  This last call will end on 11/15/2004.

Regards,
Bob & Brian
IPv6 WG co-chairs

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

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:54:27 +0900

>>>>> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 09:43:39 -0500, 
>>>>> Brian Haberman <[email-masked]> said:

> editor.  This last call will end on 11/15/2004.

I've not gone through the entire document (it's so huge...), but I'd
like to make some points at this moment.

1. as we've seen in the AD comments on rfc2462bis, the confusing
   wording "stateful" will be an issue in rfc2461bis, too.  If we
   adopt the same consensus we've reached in the rfc2462bis
   discussion, we'll have to remove the phrase of "stateful", and just
   use DHCPv6 wherever appropriate.  In particular, we'll have to
   rename the name of the "O" flag of RA, which is currently called
   "Other stateful configuration" flag.

2. according to the recent consensus on the M/O flag in the rfc2462bis
   discussion, references to [ADDRCONF] (= rfc2462bis) regarding the
   M/O flags will be inappropriate.  Possible resolutions would
   include:

   A: move descriptions of these flags to the newly-adopted "M/O flag
      consideration" document as will be done in rfc2462bis.
   B: replace the references to [ADDRCONF] regarding the M/O flags
      with references to the new "M/O" document.  We'll then need to
      consider a reference dependency issue.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]