[IPv6]Re: Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag-10

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 3:47 AM Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> Suggested clarification in section 6: Would it make sense to explicitly state
> >> that a router might need to continue to set the A flag if there might be some
> >> hosts which do not implement this specification on the link?
> >
> > IMHO this draft shouldn’t change anything about setting an A flag in PIOs.
> > Whatever the default behaviour for setting the A flag has been, it
> > should continue.
> > (I couldn’t find any RFC mandating that A must/should be 1 by default
> > - though all implementations I’ve come across do exactly that).
> > I guess we can make it  more explicit by saying smth like “
> >
> > “The P flag MUST be set independently from the A flag. In particular,
> > enabling or disabling the P flag MUST not trigger automatic changes in
> > the A flag value”
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Yes, that would be helpful. (I want reduce the risk that some
> implementer assumes that A isn't needed once they add support for this
> specification.)

OK, I've added the text to the https://github.com/furry13/6man-p-flag/pull/72

> >> Clarification in last paragraph in section 7.2: Instead of the last sentence
> >> starting with "Similarly, the host" it would be more clear to start the
> >> paragraph with "The host MUST NOT forward or originate packets" since the
> >> implications and implementation suggestion are identical for the forward and
> >> send/originate cases.
>  >
> >> Nit: Section 8 refers to "DHCPv6 relay" but this can be either a DHCPv6 server
> >> or relay as far as I can tell. I don't know if the DHCPv6 specification has a
> >> term which covers both of them.
> >
> > Makes sense, I'll craft a PR.
>
> OK. Will that be for both of the above?

Oh sorry, for both indeed.

-- 
Cheers, Jen Linkova