On 02/22/2016 09:35 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Fernando Gont
<fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
<mailto:fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com>> wrote:
> The above text (or any similar text already in the I-D) suggests
that
> this document should be updating RFC4862. Because it is not only
> specifying that to do when you do DHCPv6, but also whether to do
> SLAAC/DHCPv6 in the fist place.
>
>
> I don't see why. I don't recall a statement in RFC 4862 specifying
> whether hosts should use one or the other.
But the authors are making such statement here. i.e., if you are going
to implement SLAAC/DHCPv6, then this statement affects your
implementation. Hence, an appropriate tag should be included (i.e., such
that if I look at RFC4862 or RFC3315, it's clear that I should look at
this document, too).
I still don't see why this document needs to formally "updates: RFC
4862" if it doesn't affect any text in it.
RFC4861/RFC4862 say that when M=1 you do SLAAC. Here you are saying that
if you have a PIO with A=1, you should not do DHCPv6. That's an update
to the existing specs.
I'm not saying the above is good or bad, but that's an update, and
deserves a corresponding "update tag".
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492