Subject: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-03.txt

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:38:57 -0500

4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration
Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCP [DHCPv6]
is the standard stateful address configuration protocol. See section
5.3 for details on DHCP.

The above MAY should be a SHOULD.  There is not mention of stateful
support from ND M or O bits being MAY.  They simply can be used.  It is
the option of the user not the standard.  To not support any bits
suggested for use by users equal to stateless in the ND spec is
irresponsible for interoperability requirements in this standards track
document.  This not being a SHOULD can cause sever interoperability for
clients where the user wants all clients to use stateful auto
configuration.  Any assumption that it will not be used is premature and
we should error on the side of it being used.

The wording in 5.3 supports the reason for a SHOULD in this section.

I could argue it is a MUST but at minimum it is a SHOULD.

Regards,
/jim

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:34:25 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

> I could argue it is a MUST but at minimum it is a SHOULD.

I think I can understand your argument here, but let me try to give a 
different perspective.

If the user (I'd call him admin) requires that only stateful auto 
configuration is acceptable in the network segment by setting a few bits 
in the advertisement, he should do this only when he knows that all the 
clients do support these mechanisms.

I would not want the requirement for implementing DHCPv6 any stronger that 
it has to be, ie MAY seems enough (with current experience) -- but I could 
just maybe accept SHOULD with strong disclaimers and clarifications.

Did I understand the issue properly?  Or was this about the hosts kernels
executing DHCP when receiving M&O bits and "DHCP: file not found" would be
an acceptable and a SHOULD-compliant outcome?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings