[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On 18 March 2004, Pekka Savola wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Ralph Droms wrote: > > > Is there interest in expending any more of the IETF's resources > > > reopening a problem for which we have rough consensus on a > > solution, > > > published specifications and running code? > > > > You say that carefully, but still giving an impression as if > > rough consensus had been gauged that only one solution would > > be specified -- otherwise there would not be "reopening" the > > problem. That has never been even raised (AFAIR); I'd > > certainly have objected. > > > > The fact that there is a solution out there, which fits the > > needs of some users, does not mean that there can not (or > > should not) be a different kind of solution which would seem > > to be much more appropriate in some other scenarios or for > > some other users. > > As I've said before in reference to the recursive name server discovery > discussion, I don't believe it benefits the network operations community > to have multiple solutions to these kind of requirements.
The vendor community would probably agree. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
