On Oct 12, 2010, at 7:15 AM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote: > We are at least two service providers who are asking for the need to roll > back to 04. If text is needed to justify the need of the name option, for > sure we can help.
The draft never received any formal review by the DHC working group--the first I heard of it was when Ralph asked me about it recently. The problem is not that we would or would not somehow grant you permission to use the name option, as if it were a scarce resource. Rather, it is that the fact that you have both a name option and an IP address option that do the same thing creates an interoperability problem, and that there is no clean way out of that interoperability problem. If you absolutely have to have the FQDN option, then get rid of the IP address option. That eliminates the interoperability problem. In any case, though, you need to issue a new draft. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
