On 02/22/2016 09:35 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492