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

[Ralph Droms <rdroms at cisco.com>]

But the discussion says nothing about how complex the underlying issues
are.  I think there is significant room for simplification (but no more
simplification than necessary!), especially if we set aside
preconceptions about the M/O bits and look at what we've learned through
discussion, implementation and deployment planning.

- Ralph

On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 23:11 +0530, Syam Madanapalli wrote:
> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------