Re: NoPrefixAvail against Solicit (Re: [dhcwg] WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-02.txt)

Jinmei-san,

>>> 3. Section 10.2 contains the following sentence (newly added in the
>>> latest revision):
>>> 
>>> If the delegating router cannot delegate any prefixes to an IA_PD in
>>> the message from the requesting router, the delegating router MUST
>>> include the IA_PD in the Reply message with no prefixes in the IA_PD
>>> and a Status Code option in the IA_PD containing status code
>>> NoPrefixAvail.
>>> 
>>> I guess the "Reply" should be "Advertisement" here, because this
>>> section is talking about "Delegating Router Solicitation."  I also
>>> guess the sentence was added in response to a question of mine in
>>> the ML.  If so, a similar clarification should be introduced to
>>> Section 11.2 as well.  Additionally, the corresponding client
>>> behaviors should also be documented.
>
>> yes, well spotted.
>
> After re-reading the draft, I now believe this part is just invalid in
> Section 10.2 and should be moved to somewhere in Section 11.2.  In
> fact, NoPrefixAvail in Advertise against Solicit is already documented
> in the last paragraph of Section 10.2

you are absolutely right, I'll fix.

/ot
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg