Subject: Re: [Dhcpv6bis] [dhcpv6bis] #153 (XML 3315): requirement level of DAD is inconsistent between RFC3315(and bis) and RFC4862

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:30:30 -0000

#153: requirement level of DAD is inconsistent between RFC3315(and bis) and
RFC4862

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * owner:   => [email-masked]

-- 
-------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  errata             |      Status:  new
 Priority:  P3 major           |   Milestone:
Component:  XML 3315           |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                     |    Due Date:  31/12/2015
-------------------------------+------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/153#comment:2>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:36:19 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 We should make this a SHOULD, and maybe give an example for what the
 SHOULD exception is.   Check with Ralph to see what he knows about low-
 power uses of this.

 draft-ietf-6man-max-ra would be required to do a long lease for power
 savings.

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/153#comment:3>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:38:51 -0000

Also maybe ask the DAD proxy authors what happened with that.   And
 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-maxra-00

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/153#comment:4>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>