IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 24 May 2011 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A4A5E07BA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2011 14:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qyll8bmv5S6p for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2011 14:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-px0-f179.google.com (mail-px0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C59D4E078B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2011 14:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pxi2 with SMTP id 2so4198265pxi.38 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2011 14:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=D4JoA6TXdmVguoqKtqYK1LZ+NY5pF/NLUUZYpo3SXx4=; b=El+Xv1hcxmvozz2carcC+MT7F4ujWYecSP8svvTAYbQa+jpVUjF5UlHdlltSOX6ANX E6dUbUr6rmP9AzsNbKVqvmcx7F1HPScQZ/aT5AmB9Um6ll1/xKV7oNIrObeF1/N2JKSo xK+/orFQhU/LCwEMD/3Ok/iGjoHIw6sEkNL7Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=YQ63254Ukr5f4vT6lJS1XrFf3JSO1zA6dztAg8L7MS9/LC/Cr1rpcv1dS3oqi05vY3 aLSX7xHADYPF39uN6j547VaWwdqaIgjbjzlWQlo5yr+9wBfzJMNPsR+jU/EKtaZEsIGW B6SwZIv/QM2Wz59SLjq5PxUbYDQ5gLOzj3ANw=
Received: by 10.68.57.70 with SMTP id g6mr3081301pbq.511.1306271864573; Tue, 24 May 2011 14:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i7sm5227199pbs.19.2011.05.24.14.17.42 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 24 May 2011 14:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DDC2074.6080000@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 09:17:40 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD
References: <C9F53B85.11BE93%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> <201105232010.p4NKAV9X012654@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <53E999C4-E50D-49C9-9B02-8AD7B5641905@gmail.com> <BANLkTinByCkcvd6=wLE6=9h1xLX16AhPVQ@mail.gmail.com> <201105232111.p4NLBScJ013180@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <BANLkTi=uTPff5Xgb=iCQP+w+x_irriNagQ@mail.gmail.com> <201105232348.p4NNmqHJ015491@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <A85A3891-E078-4F4E-9D85-45B17C61C898@apple.com> <1571128F4B736C42B743F492521F123B204C71@008-AM1MPN1-003.mgdnok.nokia.com> <201105242014.p4OKE7vW009893@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <201105242014.p4OKE7vW009893@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 21:17:45 -0000

On 2011-05-25 08:14, Thomas Narten wrote:
>> Dumb question, but isn't the text making support for DHCPv6 a
>>  SHOULD, but not making it a SHOULD or MUST to run?
> 
> Correct. It's a SHOULD to implement. Whether to use it is a separate
> discussion, and neither the Node Requirements or IPv6 specs address
> this.

Which, to repeat myself again, is exactly the point made by RFC 5887.
As far as the document currently under discussion is concerned, surely
we are done?

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email