On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 06/26/2013 11:22 AM, David R Oran wrote: > >> On Jun 26, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 06/26/2013 10:42 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 26, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:08 AM, Mark Townsley <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> That explicit statement went away in RFC 3315, though the terminology >>>>>> section makes it very clear that a Host is not a Router. >>>>>> >>>>> DHCPv6 PD is explicitly for configuring routers, so I think this >>>>> assertion is wrong. >>>>> >>>> This was linked back to the assertion that "the IETF has a >>>> configuration protocol, it is DHCP" or some such. I was simply trying to >>>> point out what "the IETF" has on record in this regard. >>>> >>>> Certainly, we often use protocols beyond their original intent. RFC >>>> 5218 calls this "Wild Success", with plenty of examples. >>>> >>>> DHCPv6 PD has been referred to by one of its co-authors as "a Fax >>>> replacement", so that the user doesn't have to type in his prefix sent to >>>> him in printed form from his ISP. I think that analogy was given to sway >>>> anyone away from trying to rely on it for more than a very long-lived, >>>> essentially static, value from an ISP. >>>> >>>> Isn't a Somebody's-Law that states that "every successful protocol >>> will become a >>> transport protocol for something else”?Yup. I claim >>> >>> Yup - I claim to have coined that one. >> >> > Heh -- I definitely heard it from you first :) > > > And it's soooo true, though I managed to discourage using X protocol as an RPC framework, back in the day. Unfortunately, no success with HTTP :-(. - Jim
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
