The reason why this topic was moved from the IPv6 WG to the DNSOP WG was to force a real discussion of requirements before proposing solutions. In particular, we're required to answer the question which the IPv6 WG declined to ask: given DHCPv6 (including DHCPv6-lite), what real need is there for further work in this space? This
I think the IPv6 w.g. did answer this question several times. It concluded that it did want a solution in addition to DCHPv6. For example from the minutes of the Salt Lake City IETF in December 2001:
Deering took poll of room: How many people think w.g. should continue work on stateless DNS discovery? Consensus to continue work.
and again in the minutes of the Yokohama Japan Thursday, July 2002:
Wasserman took poll for choices listed. Results were:
1) Continue w/ existing proposal, Proposed Standard or Experimental:
Consensus to standardize short term solution Consensus to continue work on current proposal.
2) Accept DHCP in addition to current work
Consensus to continue working on DHCPv6
3) Requirements: Important to further develop requirements?
Small consensus to not work on requirements
4) Consider new short term solution:
N/A
Also, a specific solution draft was accepted as a working group item.
This work was later removed from the IPv6 w.g. charter by the IESG and moved to this working group.
I would also note that at the Vienna meeting, a "hum" was taken in the DNSOP group and there was not a consensus that there should only be a DHCPv6 solution to this problem.
I conclude from this that there is a significant number of people who think that a solution is needed in addition to DHCPv6.
Regards, Bob
#---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
