RE: [rfc2462bis] reword "stateful" for other config info?
"Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com> Sat, 22 May 2004 03:38 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23230 for <ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:38:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRNJ4-0002tc-HF for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:36:18 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4M3aI5N011127 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:36:18 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRNGq-0002Kx-Bc for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:34:00 -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 XAA22927 for <ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:33:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRNGm-0004VS-Lq for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:33:56 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRNFO-0004Ij-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:32:32 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRNEB-0004Bd-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:31:17 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRN3M-0007s9-IX; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:20:04 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRMtg-0006E2-Dv for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:10:04 -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 XAA22179 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:09:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRMtb-00023T-5I for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:09:59 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRMsk-0001xO-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:09:07 -0400
Received: from zmamail03.zma.compaq.com ([161.114.64.103]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRMs8-0001qy-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:08:28 -0400
Received: from tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net (tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.103.130.103]) by zmamail03.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B16A541; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:08:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.103.130.26]) by tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Fri, 21 May 2004 23:08:28 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Subject: RE: [rfc2462bis] reword "stateful" for other config info?
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 23:08:24 -0400
Message-ID: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B0644C131@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net>
Thread-Topic: [rfc2462bis] reword "stateful" for other config info?
Thread-Index: AcQ/FY/imjHiJhn0QAicenHAZkOklwAlG4pg
From: "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>
To: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>, ipv6@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 May 2004 03:08:28.0953 (UTC) FILETIME=[0E43C890:01C43FAA]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Jinmei, Your wording works for me well. Good suggestion too. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of JINMEI Tatuya / ???? > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 4:12 AM > To: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: [rfc2462bis] reword "stateful" for other config info? > > One (perhaps last) question about the M/O flags for rfc2462bis: > > Currently, RFC2462 uses the term "stateful" as the counter > part of the "stateless" configuration defined in RFC2462, > both for address configuration (the M flag) and for other > configuration (the O flag). > > Using "stateful" should be okay for address configuration > (the M flag part). > > However, as Ralph pointed out before, "stateful" may not be > appropriate for other configuration information: > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipv6/current > /msg02262.html > > In particular, the fact that RFC3736 (which we are primarily > considering as the protocol for the O flag) is entitled > "*Stateless* Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) > Service for IPv6" will confuse implementors if we keep > calling it "stateful" in rfc2462bis. > > So, I strongly believe we should clarify this point in some way. > Possible solutions would include: > > 1. remove "stateful" from the definition of the O flag (in > rfc2461bis), that is, change > > O 1-bit "Other stateful configuration" flag. When > set, hosts use the administered > (stateful) protocol > for autoconfiguration of other (non-address) > information. The use of this flag is > described in > [ADDRCONF]. > (RFC2461 Section 4.2) > > to (e.g.): > > O 1-bit "Other configuration" flag. When > set, hosts use a separate protocol > for autoconfiguration of other (non-address) > information. The use of this flag is > described in > [ADDRCONF]. > > and reword rfc2462bis accordingly. > > 2. do not touch the definition of the O flag, but add notes for > clarification in rfc2462bis like this: > > While the flag and the corresponding protocol are called > "stateful" in order to highlight the contrast to the stateless > protocol defined in this document, the intended protocol > [RFC3736] is also defined to work in a stateless fashion. This > is based on a result, through experiments, that all known > "other" configuration information can be managed by a stateless > server, that is, a server that does not maintain state of each > client that the server provides with the configuration > information. > > I personally prefer the former with small preference since it > should be a cleaner clarification. But I can live with the > second approach, too. > > What do others think? Is there any other opinions? > > JINMEI, Tatuya > Communication Platform Lab. > Corporate R&D Center, > Toshiba Corp. > jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
- [rfc2462bis] reword "stateful" for other config i… JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: [rfc2462bis] reword "stateful" for other conf… Tim Chown
- Re: [rfc2462bis] reword "stateful" for other conf… JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: [rfc2462bis] reword "stateful" for other conf… Tim Chown
- RE: [rfc2462bis] reword "stateful" for other conf… Bound, Jim
- Re: [rfc2462bis] reword "stateful" for other conf… JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉