[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Tony, please see my in-line comments: > > >> I think the questions should be is there merit in the > >> proposal? > > > >That is true, but your section 3 does not establish that merit. > > Hi Tony, just a reminder from an earlier e-mail that we will be seeking to > provide additional detail in section 3 in the future versions of our > draft.** > ----snip-----
To be blunt: There is a team of people willing to work on this draft. + 1 point The team appears to be passionate about defending the work. + 1 point There appears to be well described content in the draft. + 1 point Description of the need for this appears to be lacking. - 5 points The mail thread is defending the right to develop something different, not expanding on the need for something new. - 5 points Between the lines; appears to be religious bias against DHCP. - 10 points Unless we understand the problem we can't evaluate the solution. Lack of code that implements PD is not a justification, because no code exists for this approach either. Arguing existing RS/RA/ICMP code fails as well because the pieces needed to make this work don't exist in any current implementations. I don't care how many solutions we have as long as they solve unique problems. For your next version of the draft separate out the packet format issues from the state machine issues. Process FOO needs to acquire a prefix for the CPE and will use packet format BAR. There is a state machine driving this that will need to do the same things no matter what FOO ends up being called. If that state machine is significantly simpler than anything that is currently defined then you have a basis for expanding on section 3. Likewise, if the packet format BAR can do something that any other existing packet formats can't. Keep in mind that a new FOO can send an existing BAR. If the issue is centralized vs. distributed management, then say that. If the whole issue boils down to 'it can't be called DHCP', then we can just rename the existing tool to PD and be done with it (ie: drop DHCP from the name). Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
