>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:57:26 -0500,
>>>>> Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I agree the text should be updated. To address your points 'c'
> and 'd', it should be pointed out that 2462 was written so that there
> was no dependency upon a particular stateful configuration protocol.
> Operators would simply utilize their protocol of choice (DHCPv6 or foo)
> and 2462 would allow that to be advertised to the hosts.
I agree. How much a spec should be specific is always a tradeoff (if
it is too generic, implementors and operators will be confused against
so many choices. if it is too specific, we'll kill future
extensions), but in this case, I think it is overspecification to
restrict the possibility to DHCPv6.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
