Re: [dhcwg] Brokenness of specs w.r.t. client behavior with M&O bits

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 17, 2008, at 4:21 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> 1. Is the following text an accurate summary of the previous IETF
> consensus on the definition and use of M/O bits:
>
>   The M/O flags indicate the availability of DHCPv6 service for
>   address assignment and other configuration information,
>   respectively.  The IPv6 specifications make no requirements on the
>   behavior of DHCPv6 clients in response to the values of the M/O
>   flags received in RAs.

It seems like it is, yes.

> 2. Does the IETF choose to continue to accept this consensus or should
> the definition of client behavior in response to the M/O flags be
> revisited?

I think the current spec is vague, and therefore harmful to  
interoperability.   So I'd like the IETF to consider changing it.

> 2. NO: How does the IETF want to change this consensus and how should
> the
> change process be conducted?
>
>    There have been some suggestions for changes to the current
> consensus
>    behavior:
>
> * Deprecate the M/O flags; require that future DHCPv6 clients ignore
>   the M/O flags; require that routers send RAs with M/O flags set to 1

This would be my preference.

> * Revert to previous definitions and behaviors in RFC 286*

I think this is a bad idea, but if the consensus is to go this way  
then we need to tweak what is said in the old RFCs, because what they  
said still wasn't very helpful.

> * draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt

I think this draft nicely summarizes the problem, but that the  
proposed solution isn't ready for prime time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------