I want to see more discussion and I believe Thomas and Tony have raised valid points.
I also think this fix should solve with wording plugging two networks together. That I am thinking on how we word it. But if we are to do DAD on all bits then we can also add that when a network joins another then DAD must be done by one of them. But if all do dad on the link-local and EUI then that would work to and with the optimization many of us implementors used I am wondering if we still have the problem for a "node". The issue is for two separate nodes and I think the wordage bob sent out killed that and what I perceived steve to be arguing at Yokohoma where there was no consensus I saw as follows: Node 1 has EUI of X'c3de' Node 2 has EUI of X'c3de' That we would permit Node 1 to be 4ffe::c3de and Node 2 to be 3ffe::c3de But the words I read from Bob would not permit this? That is the heartburn I have big time. I believe that we all agreed that EUI could be duplicated by manufactures and we should prevent that as best we can with DAD. Also Thomas is correct silence has in other working groups been used to state consensus cannot be determined. My opinion is that if working group members don't respond by some amount of time then too bad they loose and we move forward. But that is not how things are being managed out of IPv6 WG in some cases and I would prefer we adhere to the same policy in all working groups in the IETF. Possibly this is an issue for the chairs to discuss with ADs to get some consensus on the state of the IETF and get a decision. regards, /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Elz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:58 AM > To: Margaret Wasserman > Cc: Michel Py; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Thoughts on draft-savola-ipv6-127-prefixlen-04.txt > > > Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:31:08 -0400 > From: Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > | The current situation with the addressing architecture is > that we have > | established a consensus of the WG to make two changes to > the document > | (described in Bob's mail) and send it (back) to the IESG > for consideration > | as a draft standard. > > From where did we get that consensus? We're still discussing the > two changes, it is clear that Tony Hain at least (maybe Jim > Bound, that's > less clear) is opposed to one of them. But in general most seem to > support making those changes. > > Though that's mostly by silence - and if you believe one of Thomas' > recent messages, silence is not enough to change the status quo ... > (which here would be what is in addrarch-08). > > I don't, I think if there's support, and no stated technical > objections, > then changes should be made, if the silent majority see that > coming and > disagree, they won't remain silent. > > | I have not seen a level of response to this thread that > would lead me to > | question that consensus. Have you? > > I haven't seen anything in this thread that establishes any > consensus for > sending the doc back to the IESG yet at all. > > kre > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
