Subject: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:19:02 +0900

In the wg meeting on Tuesday, several concerns were raised regarding
this issue (and the proposed resolution).  To summarize (some of)
them,

1. the resolution proposes to say "the stateful protocol is DHCPv6"
   clearly, without leaving other possibilities.  This would require
   RFC3315 (DHCPv6) to be listed as a normative reference.  However,
   we'll then face a reference dependency issue, since rfc2462bis is
   soon expected to be recycled as a DS while RFC3315 is still a PS.
   (BTW: I could not find a direct source of this dependency issue.
   Could someone give me a pointer?)

2. also, listing RFC3315 as a normative reference may be unreasonable
   for implementors since it would force them to read RFC3315, which
   is a quite large document, whereas we are going to make
   implementing the stateful protocol optional (at least in some
   sense).  I don't know if this concern is widely shared by wg
   members, though.

The easiest solution to them would be to list RFC3315 as an
informative reference.  I don't know whether this is acceptable.
According to Section 2.7 of draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07.txt,
Normative references specify

  - documents that must be read to understand or implement the
    technology in the new RFC
  - documents whose technology must be present for the technology
    in the new RFC to work

But the first condition seems to me a bit subjective.  Under which
requirement can we decide a document must be read for a different
document?

The second condition is a bit clearer, but assuming we basically
agreed that implementing DHCPv6 is basically optional, isn't "must be
present" too strong?  And if so, can't we still safely use this RFC as
an informative reference?

Note: I'm not necessarily pushing the easy solution.  I'm just not
sure about the base of the discussion, and want to be sure about it.

Any clarifications are welcome.  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 Mar 2004 04:19:48 +0200 (EET)

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] 神明達哉 wrote:
[...]
> requirement can we decide a document must be read for a different

I don't think this is a problem.  You don't have to understand DHCPv6 
to ignore M/O bits -- which you only act upon IF you have implemented 
DHCPv6 -- and then you understand it already :).

IMHO, putting the reference as Informative seems just fine.

-- 
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: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:52:51 +0900

>>>>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:33:23 -0500, 
>>>>> Ralph Droms <[email-masked]> said:

> Do you mean that a DS spec cannot have an informative reference to a PS spec?

No, my understanding is:

- a DS spec cannot have a normative reference to a PS spec. (though I
  could not find a direct source of this dependency rule)
- a DS spec can have an informative reference to a PS spec.

					JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 03:00:08 -0500

Jinmei - I mistyped and you guessed what I had intended to ask.  Good catch
and thanks for the clarification.

Can anyone supply a direct reference to an explicit statement that "a DS
spec cannot have a normative reference to a PS spec."?

- Ralph

At 04:52 PM 3/4/2004 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya /

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:53:28 +0900

>>>>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 03:00:08 -0500, 

> spec cannot have a normative reference to a PS spec."?

I've not seen any responses yet...I guess we could deal with the
original issue with leaving this open, but it's still very helpful to
clarify this point to make a realistic decision.

If no one can give a concrete pointer, I'll assume "a DS spec cannot
have a normative reference to a PS spec" for safety.

					JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:33:23 -0500

At 02:19 AM 3/4/2004 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / 

- Ralph

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 08:34:56 +0200 (EET)

> have a normative reference to a PS spec" for safety.

I'd look at RFC2026 and draft-ymbk-downref-01.txt.  Especially the 
latter is meant to describe the problem at some length.