Re: [rfc2461bis] Clarify the use of the M and O flags
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [rfc2461bis] Clarify the use of the M and O flags
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 06:05:42 -0400,
>>>>> "Soliman Hesham" <H.Soliman at flarion.com> said:
> As far as 2461bis is concerned it is stated in the
> current draft that setting the M flag implies that
> DHCPv6 is used for address config. If the O flag
> is set, the draft refers to DHCPv6 for other config
> parameters. RFC 3315 is also referenced.
> Please see section 4.2, definition of the M and O
> flags. If there are no further comments I'll close
> this issue.
Assuming we've reached a consensus in a similar issue for 2462bis (at
least several people explicitly agreed on the proposal in this list
and I've not seen any objections) and the consensus applies to 2461bis
too, I think the text could be revised a bit more.
Roughly speaking, the "consensus" is:
- clearly specify the protocols for the flags: RFC3315 for M and
RFC3736 for O
- clarify (change) the meaning of the M/O flags; they are just hints
of availability of the corresponding services, not triggers for
invoking the protocols under a certain level of requirement
- leave the actual usage of the M/O flags will be used to a separate
document. rfc2462bis mentions the other document
(see the following URL for more details
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg02616.html)
According to the above and to be more aligned with the forthcoming
rfc2462bis, I'd revise the definitions of M/O flags like this:
M 1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag. When
set, it indicates Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol [DHCPv6] is avialable for address
autoconfiguration in addition to any addresses
autoconfigured using stateless address
autoconfiguration. More details of this flag is
described in [ADDRCONF].
O 1-bit "Other stateful configuration" flag. When
set, it indicates a subset of DHCPv6 [RFC3736] is
available for autoconfiguration of other
(non-address) information. Examples of such
information are DNS-related information or
information on other servers within the
network. More details of this flag is described
in [ADDRCONF].
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
jinmei at isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.