In your previous mail you wrote: Would it make sense to consider whether separating "stateless DHCPv6" and the stateful part (~address assignment) to separate drafts would make sense? => the stateful part is "dynamic address allocation", not "address assignment" (and this is not a detail, i.e. DHCP is not BOOTP).
I think a lot more people would be confortable with DHCPv6 if it was very simple and supported only the informational records most people would only use.. and stateful address and such specified in a separate draft? => I fully agree and IMHO the "stateless DHCPv6" should be taken into account only when this will be done. Thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: of course the name (stateless DHCPv6) is the first thing to change (:-)! -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
