On Oct 19, 2010, at 6:21 AM, Alain Durand wrote: > I'm sorry, but you might have missed the fact that the original document was > last called both in Softwire and DHCwg in February.
I believe that you believe this, but find no evidence of it in the DHC working group archive. What I do find are two messages about the last call in the softwire working group, which is *not* the same thing as a last call in the DHC working group. One of the two messages to the mailing list about this was a comment by Dave Hankins about the very question we are debating now: whether or not the FQDN option is a good idea. Dave's position was that it was not. If you want a comparison, look at how Remy handled the DHCP option for 6rd, which was also in February. That was an actual DHC working group last call, and got quite a bit of discussion. My point in mentioning the last call issue is not to blame anyone for not requesting the last call, but rather to explain why we are having this discussion now, rather than having had it in February. > I'm not aware of any model in DHCP that allows for such an indirection. Thus, > they apparently have decided, for operational reasons, to use DNS as their > level > of indirection. The model that allows this in DHCP is the one that I explained in the message that you replied to. Do you think that that model will not work for some reason? If so, what is the reason? _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
