>>>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:25:33 -0700,
>>>>> Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This draft then fails to recognise that one solution (DHCPv6) is already
> standardize when the others are not and then weight the
> advantages of standardizing a new mechanism versus the drawbacks
> of having more than one solution to achieve the same thing
> and all the cost behind it, like the added complexity of
> choosing which mechanims to use (Section 4.0 does not provide enough
> help here) and the added support cost in implementations.
I understand your concern, particularly in that the current draft
could hide the cost of having more than one solution. In fact, I
showed a similar concern for a prior version of the draft as a meta
comment, and I see the 02 revision is better than before on this
point.
Perhaps the current revision is still not perfect in this sense, but I
understand that the chairs are in a hurry to submit it to the IESG due
to the deadline and that the current goal of this document is to
provide food of thought in conjunction with the IESG in order to make
an appropriate next step quickly. I trust the IESG to take into
account the standardization status of each approach correctly in the
evaluation procedure.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
