Subject: RE: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 06:39:46 +0200

Hi all,

> Personally, I don't think there's any need to refer to the 
> node-req doc.

I agree.  But I think we can even include a ref to DHCPv6
as informative.  I don't see how there can be a normative
reference to Stateful Add Autoconf. if we are defining
Stateless Add Autoconf. 

John
LR��(�H��
躙��X��X��*o�'�~��٢�+-��b��^�笶�m��?�0�'�~���f��f��X��)ߣ���

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:11:00 +0900

>>>>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 06:39:46 +0200, 
>>>>> [email-masked] said:

> reference to Stateful Add Autoconf. if we are defining

So far, all the responses in this thread seem to support having
RFC3315 (DHCPv6) in rfc2462bis as an informative reference, and not
referring to the node-req draft.  Is my understanding correct?

I can live with this approach.  But I also think it is helpful to
mention like "what is the stateful protocol (and propbably the
mandatory level to implement it) is beyond the scope of rfc2462bis and
is specified in a separate document".  Otherwise, readers would
continue to wonder what the stateful protocol is while we could
actually answer the question.

In summary, I'd like to propose

- in the body of rfc2462bis, we do not explicitly say what the
  stateful protocol is but mention that it is specified in a separate
  document.
- regarding reference, we only list RFC3315 as an informative
  reference.  (and we probably need some additional text in the body
  that refers to the reference)

Does this make sense?

					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
--------------------------------------------------------------------