Do you think Architectural Principle 3.2 is being misinterpreted in this discussion (regarding DNS configuration), or should AP3.2 be amended, or should we deprecate IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration?
I ask in all seriousness, because IMHO the IETF as a whole may not be keeping AP3.2 as firmly in mind as it should...
I'm also a little leery of lurching off into a philosophical black hole on the dnsop mailing list, so any declaration of "out of scope" will be heeded. Perhaps discussion of AP3.2 might move to the problem-statement mailing list?
- Ralph
At 01:26 PM 8/4/2003 +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 07:22:13AM -0400, John Schnizlein wrote: > > Since there is a protocol (DCHPv6) which can provide the necessary > information for hosts, and since the "heavy-weight" concerns attributed > to that protocol have been shown invalid (existence proof: DHPCv6-light), > justification for developing a new protocol (or extension of RA) must meet > the burden identified in Architectural Principle 3.2
By that argument, we would not have IPv6 stateless autoconf at all?
Tim #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
#---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
