[rfc2462bis] reword "stateful" for other config info?

JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> Fri, 21 May 2004 08:44 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA15661 for <ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:44:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR5VK-0000Ek-4R for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:35:48 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4L8Zj8B000879 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:35:45 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR5OG-0006yB-1p for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:28:28 -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 EAA14668 for <ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:28:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR5OD-0005D3-Ab for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:28:25 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR5NQ-00055C-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:27:37 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR5Md-0004wP-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:26:47 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR5F9-0004rc-7I; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:19:03 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR5AW-0003ZQ-ES for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:14:16 -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 EAA13849 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:14:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR5AT-0003Bc-NM for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:14:13 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR59V-00033O-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:13:14 -0400
Received: from shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp ([202.249.10.124]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR58Y-0002vE-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:12:14 -0400
Received: from ocean.jinmei.org (unknown [3ffe:501:100f:1010:9d2d:1b97:76ed:d268]) by shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B4C15263 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2004 17:12:11 +0900 (JST)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 17:12:11 +0900
Message-ID: <y7vn0429p2c.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: [rfc2462bis] reword "stateful" for other config info?
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) Emacs/21.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
Organization: Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corp., Kawasaki, Japan.
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
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

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