A general question. If 6rd could become an RFC in RFC 5969 with no mention of FQDN for the BR, what is so special about DS-Lite and deployments that a FQDN is needed by DS-Lite for the AFTR? I would think the same FQDN issue would arise in 6rd as well... What did I miss?
Thanks, Hemant -----Original Message----- From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 1:42 AM To: Ralph Droms; draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-opt...@tools.ietf.org Cc: Ullio Mario; Chairs Dhc; magli...@core3.amsl.com; Softwire Chairs; Softwires Subject: Re: [Softwires] DHCPv6 AFTR name option is needed Dear Raplh, Do you suggest the I-D should elaborate further on the FQDN use cases so this to be acceptable by the IESG? Chairs, how should we proceed? The version which passed the WG LC is not the 05. Cheers, Med _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
