IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc2462bis] relationship between M/O flags and related protocols

Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com> Fri, 21 May 2004 17:10 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15837 for <ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:10:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRDW1-0004aV-Vs for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:09:02 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4LH91fI017635 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:09:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRDUg-0003oe-5y for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:07:38 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15566 for <ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:07:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRDUe-0004oh-CV for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:07:36 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRDTh-0004le-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:06:38 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRDT2-0004ix-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:05:56 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRDGd-0000lJ-DF; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:53:07 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRDAK-0007jp-TT for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:46:37 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14315 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:46:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRDAJ-0003Kg-60 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:46:35 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRD9K-0003FR-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:45:34 -0400
Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRD8M-0003BB-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:44:34 -0400
Received: from bebop.France.Sun.COM ([129.157.174.15]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4LGgUMP028588; Fri, 21 May 2004 10:42:31 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from blixten (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by bebop.France.Sun.COM (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with SMTP id i4LGhuQ12785; Fri, 21 May 2004 18:43:57 +0200 (MEST)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:43:58 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
Reply-To: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc2462bis] relationship between M/O flags and related protocols
To: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
Cc: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>, Christian Huitema <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <y7v4qqabanb.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
Message-ID: <Roam.SIMC.2.0.6.1085157838.3587.nordmark@bebop.france>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60

> Or, if you feel happier by mentioning changes of the M bit explicitly,
> we could alternatively say
> 
>      The details of how a host uses the M flag, including any use of
>      the "on" and "off" transitions for this flag, to control the use
>      of DHCPv6 for address assignment will be described in a separate
>      document.
> (based on a previous text from Ralph)
> 
> This way, we can avoid the use of the "possibly extraneous state
> variable" which is internal information in the implementation, while
> keeping the essential idea about external behavior.

The text above is fine with me.

  Erik


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email