> 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 > discussion is finally taking place on the DNSOP mailing list, albiet > in fits and starts. Discussion of new protocol extensions (such as > your draft) will be in scope (for some WG, probably not DNSOP) if and > only if this discussion concludes that there's a gap between real > requirements and existing protocols.
<ad hat> this is indeed what i thought was/is happening randy #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
