>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:10:40 -0500,
>>>>> "Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If you or I or someone else implement DHCPv6 draft-28
> which will be Proposed Standard any day announced then that code should
> be submitted to the KAME pool for the Internet community and work with
> the BSD stack. If KAME will do that I have no issue at all.
I've already made this point clear, but just make it sure, if others
implement DHCPv6 with stateful address autoconfiguration and
contribute the implementation to us, we're willing to review it. If
the implementation is a good one, we'll merge it to our repository
(with some credits to the contributor). There is nothing special here
about our current of view of stateful addres autoconfiguration.
> So I am calling out a
> question. Will KAME respect the issues of this community and support
> the IPv6 requirement that stateful implementation for autoconfiguration
> is in fact an IPv6 requirement in the market and by customers and BSD
> code base should reflect that as it always has in the past.
(Note: in this part, I'm not talking on behalf of the KAME
project. This is my personal opinion as an individual).
I'm not 100% sure about "the issues of this community". But if this
means that some IPv6 users want to have a running implementation of
stateful address autoconfiguration, I'll surely respect the desire.
I'm sorry that I cannot "support" the IPv6 requirement that stateful
implementation for autoconfiguration is in fact an IPv6 requirement
"in the market and by customers". This is just because I don't see
the need for it "in the market and by customers" around me (otherwise,
I should have already implemented this part, shouldn't I?). However,
this does not mean I oppose to the idea of the requirement. Again, if
someone who has the requirement "in their market and by their
customers" wants to contribute the implementation to the KAME project,
I'll respectfully appreciate it.
As for the "BSD code base", I cannot completely control their policy
on what should be shipped. It is the BSD community who decides that
part, based on the requirement "in their market and by their
customers". However, if I have a complete implementation of DHCPv6
including stateful address autoconfiguration and when the
specification is published as an RFC, I'll ask the BSD community to
merge the implementation as a part of their distribution, just as
usual. There is nothing special in the DHCPv6 case.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The IPv6 Users Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe users" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
