> Hi Ralph, why is it hard to talk about the e-mail without "more detail"?
> Do you believe that it is theoretically possible that DHCPv6 PD > would be "neither required nor desired"? Please make the case here (using technical justifications). Basic the need for a new protocol on theoretical possibilities has repeatedly been problematic in the IETF. > It is here that I'd like to start this portion of our conversation. I would not. Starting off with the assertion that "its theoretically possible that the existing protocol isn't desired, therefore we should invent a new one" is a complete non-starter for the IETF. We do engineering here, presumably solving real problems, where the existing solutions are inadquate or non-existent. > There's no doubt that DHCPv6 PD works, was carefully considered, and > does have an install base. We affirm that fully. In which case, there would appear to be no need to talk about a new protocol, since you appear to admit that an existing standard does solve the problem. If you want this group to consider a new protocol, start by convincing us that: 1) there is a real (not theoretical) problem that needs solving, and 2) the existing mechanisms do not address it properly, and 3) the best way to address the problem is with a new mechanism (and it's better than other proposed ways of fixing the problem). At this point, AFAIAC, you have not gotten past either points 1) or 2). Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
