Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05

["Bjoern A. Zeeb" <[e-mail]>]

On 10 May 2019, at 20:08, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> On Fri, 10 May 2019, 神明達哉 wrote:
>
>>> "   A host that receives only RAs with the flag set to 1 SHOULD NOT
>>>     attempt any IPv4 operations, unless it subsequently receives at 
>>> least
>>>     one RA with the flag set to zero.  As soon as such an RA is 
>>> received,
>>>     IPv4 operations MAY be started.
>>> "
>>
>> This text doesn't read to me that "a host SHOULD NOT start IPv4
>> operations until it has received an RA with the ipv6only-flag
>> cleared".  At least literally, it just talks about the host's 
>> behavior
>> *after* it receives an RA with ipv6only-flag on.
>
> Some people seems to have read "attempt" in the above text as "should 
> not start", meaning it should delay starting IPv4 operations until it 
> knows about the status of this flag (the host has no idea about the 
> flag status until it has received RAs at attach time).
>
> If we don't want this to happen then the current text in -05 is not 
> clear enough on this case. I believe several people have voiced their 
> opinion that they would accept the flag being part of the heuristic of 
> deciding whether to continue doing DHCPv4 and/or IPv4 LL (or not). The 
> -05 text doesn't seem to actually say this, so it should be changed?

As a non-native English speaker, would adding a “.. attempt any 
 >>further<< IPv4 operations, ..” reflect what you mean?

/bz