RE: [dhcwg] RE: purpose of m/o bit

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound at hp.com>]

at least have discussion where all agree for sure.  not clear a document
is needed if we can put it in dhc or possibly biz update to 2462 yet
again :----)
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Syam Madanapalli [mailto:smadanapalli at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 1:41 PM
> To: ipv6 at ietf.org; dhcwg at ietf.org
> Cc: Ted Lemon; Bound, Jim; Iljitsch van Beijnum; Ralph Droms 
> (rdroms); Bernie Volz (volz); Thomas Narten; 
> jinmei at isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RE: purpose of m/o bit
> 
> Isn't it such a long idscussion a proof for the confusion in
> understanding the M/O
> bits? Instead of leaving the discussion here, thinking that there is
> no confusion or
> be fore taking any radical changes (either discarding M or O 
> or both flags, or 
> making changes to the DHCPv6 protocols), it is better to 
> document the inteded 
> use of M/O flags as an informational document, so that we 
> will have uniform 
> implementations in th future. I am sure this (intended use of M/O
> flags) is very
> obvious for some people here, but definitely help many others. Also
> this information
> will be handy for the implementer.
> 
> - Syam
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------