Re: [Autoconf] Regarding Baccelli/Townsley Internet-Draft

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin at boeing.com>]

I have been keeping out of this for a number of reasons,
but I think there are two things I can say for now.

First, my discomfort with both of these documents has
been largely based on the use of MAY/SHOULD/MUST and their
implications wrt to flexibility. On that subject, I would
encourage folks to go back to Stan's three messages dated
10/29/09 which IMHO very clearly articulate the implications.
Based on those considerations, I have to agree that the wg
draft gives an appropriate balance of flexibility.

Second, I want there to be flexibility to allow for
"tethered" hosts that are always single-hop neighbors
on a router's interface that otherwise has undetermined
connectivity properties. That may mean that the router's
interface may need to configure a prefix other than /32 or
/128.

I believe the flexibility is there because there is no
MAY/SHOULD/MUST, but I believe there should be specific
mention about support for tethered hosts within the model
of a "semi-undetermined" connectivity property interface.

Fred
fred.l.templin at boeing.com