Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

On May 13, 2011, at 12:02 PM 5/13/11, Thomas Narten wrote:

> Bob,
> 
> Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>> While I support changing the requirement to a SHOULD, I would prefer
>> the text to be something like:
> 
>>     	<t> DHCPv6 <xref target='RFC3315' /> can be used to obtain and
>> 	configure addresses. In general, a network may provide for the
>> 	configuration of addresses through Router Advertisements,
>> 	DHCPv6 or both.   There will be a wide range of IPv6 deployment models
>>        and differences in address assignment requirements.  Consequently all hosts
>> 	SHOULD implement address configuration via DHCP.</t>
> 
>> It's not just about what some operators may or may not do.  For
>> example enterprises, governments, etc. will also have specific
>> requirements.
> 
> I like this text better than what I proposed as well.

Here's my contribution, trying to make an explicit link between the last two sentences:

        <t> DHCPv6 <xref target='RFC3315' /> can be used to obtain and
	configure addresses. In general, a network may provide for the
	configuration of addresses through Router Advertisements,
	DHCPv6 or both.  There will be a wide range of IPv6 deployment
	models and differences in address assignment requirements,
	some of which may require DHCPv6 for address assignment.
	Consequently all hosts SHOULD implement address configuration
	via DHCPv6.</t>

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