On Aug 13, 2007, at 09:10, David W. Hankins wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 05:51:09PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達
哉 wrote:
In any event, I hear that some DHCPv6 guys are planning to make a new
draft that covers this topic. So I think it's better to hold off for
now and wait for the document, rather than continue this thread
with keeping possible misunderstanding or confusing about the base
protocol principles.
I agree with everything Jinmei said, but this in particular. Any
conclusions from these threads have a tendency to get forgotten -
it's better that we argue the position of a draft that an editor
can follow consensus.
I agree with M. Jinmei as far as the quoted excerpt above goes.
As much as I dislike DHCPv6 on general principle, I don't expect that
IETF will abandon it in favor of a system that more coherently
addresses the various separate concerns that DHCPv6 attempts to
meet. I hope the DHC WG will specify requirements for routers
sending advertisements with the M bit set that prevent any ambiguity
from arising at the node during link configuration.
p.s. I really wish IETF had deprecated DHCPv6 when it had the
chance. Every last thing DHCPv6 does belongs in one of two other,
separate domains, i.e. either in the sub-IP layer, e.g. EAP, or at
the sub-application layer, e.g. DNS-SD. Instead, IETF chose a short-
sighted and half-baked solution to a problem that really didn't need
a rush job to solve, and the engineering community today is poorer
for it.
--
james woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
