Ted Lemon wrote: > However, what I have *not* noticed, which I find kind of stunning, is > anybody from the "let's do it" side of the argument answering Iljitsch's > very cogent and telling objection here: > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/current/msg01014.html
(quoting) >> So how would a DHCP solution work when the user connects: >> >> - a Windows XP or MacOS X machine but Microsoft/Apple won't be >> including the new DHCP option for another 12 months >> - a Windows 98 machine that is no longer getting updates from >> Microsoft >> - a no brand home gateway which can't be upgraded by the user Those comments are objections to *change*. They are not specific objections to this proposal. They apply equally well to DCHP + EAP, DHCP + CHAP, new DHCP options for network functionality, or many other things. I won't address DHCPv6, because I haven't been tracking it. But let's have a fair evaluation. If we decide that PANA fits the requirements perfectly, the above objections apply equally well to it. Therefore, those objections should be applied to all proposed changes to the network. Or, they shouldn't be applied to any proposed change. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
