IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O flags

"Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com> Sun, 25 April 2004 05:35 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 BAA27147 for <ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:35:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BHcH9-0000Ip-Bn for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:34:00 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3P5Xxa6001156 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:33:59 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BHcA9-0006hR-2b for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:26:45 -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 BAA26838 for <ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:26:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BHcA6-00028b-2o for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:26:42 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BHc92-0001qm-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:25:37 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BHc7x-0001Q7-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:24:29 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BHbyo-0002sH-He; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:15:02 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BHbuh-0001yf-RO for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:10:51 -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 BAA26430 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:10:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BHbue-00069g-Ur for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:10:45 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BHbti-0005vi-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:09:47 -0400
Received: from mail2.microsoft.com ([131.107.3.124]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BHbsy-0005XA-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:09:00 -0400
Received: from INET-VRS-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.8.110]) by mail2.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1041); Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:07:46 -0700
Received: from 157.54.6.197 by INET-VRS-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:08:30 -0700
Received: from red-imc-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.9.102]) by INET-HUB-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:08:43 -0700
Received: from win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.0.84]) by red-imc-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1069); Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:08:31 -0700
Received: from WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.81]) by win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1069); Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:08:24 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: RE: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O flags
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:08:28 -0700
Message-ID: <DAC3FCB50E31C54987CD10797DA511BA08A5FB28@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Thread-Topic: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O flags
Thread-Index: AcQpwUpkTYvmE4UlTzKzc+ILxR6mlgAwZJpA
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>
To: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2004 05:08:25.0073 (UTC) FILETIME=[56554E10:01C42A83]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> >> Some people commented that we needed to clarify what's bad with the
> >> M/O flags if we want to deprecate (or remove) them.

The normal IETF practice is that when a document progresses from PS do DS and then to standard, parts of the specification that are not actually present in implementations get removed from the spec. As much as I can tell, we don't have much actual implementation of the M/O bits. If we follow the logic of the process, we should remove the corresponding sections from the spec.

-- Christian Huitema

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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