Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 01:36:18PM -0600, Bob Hinden wrote:

>    M :
>        1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag.  When set, it  
> indicates
>        that addresses are available via Dynamic Host Configuration  
> Protocol
>        [DHCPv6], including addresses that were not configured via  
> stateless
>        address autoconfiguration.  Clients SHOULD use DHC to obtain  
> addresses
>        (and associated configuration information) as described in  
> [ADDRCONF].
>        Note that when the M bit is set, the setting of the O bit is
>        irrelevant, since the DHC server will return "other"  
> configuration
>        information together with addresses.
> 
>    O :
>        1-bit "Other configuration" flag.  When set, it indicates that
>        [DHCPv6lite] is available for autoconfiguration of other (non- 
> address)
>        information.  Examples of such information are DNS-related  
> information
>        or information on other servers within the network. When set,
>         - If the M bit is also set, clients SHOULD use DHC to obtain
>           addresses (and associated configuration information) as  
> described
>           above.
>         - If the M bit is not set, clients SHOULD use DHC as  
> described in
>           RFC3736.

That should probably be a reference [DHCPv6lite], or you should say
DHC Lite instead of DHC?
 
> I also reviewed <draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-08.txt>.  I didn't find  
> any mention of the M and O flags in the RFC2462bis draft.   
> Consequently, I don't see any need to modify that draft if we adopt  
> these changes for RFC2461bis.

Yes, the change log for 2462bis says 

   o  Removed the text regarding the M and O flags, considering the
      maturity of implementations and operational experiences.
      ManagedFlag and OtherConfigFlag were removed accordingly.  (Note
      that this change does not mean the use of these flags is
      deprecated.)

Which explains why it was removed.

Note another changeklog in 2462bis talks about removing references to
stateful configuration:

   o  Avoided the wording of "stateful configuration", which is known to
      be quite confusing, and simply used "DHCPv6" wherever appropriate.

Maybe the text above should reflect that, and just refer to the DHC
variants without explictly mentioning the s-word?

-- 
Tim/::1

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------