On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 09:56:37AM +0100, Stig Venaas wrote: > Thanks David for providing some input on this. It's been very quiet from > others. I'm wondering how we should proceed with the layer 2 relay agent > stuff. I'm somewhat concerned about this as well, I'd like to see some comment from other server implementors. If they've seen more issues than I have, the same issues, or no issues at all, that's all useful information. > I'm thinking perhaps a first step could be an informational document > discussing what we mean by a layer-2 relay agent and different ways > they may be implemented and relevant issues like what is in the > current draft and also what David point out here. I think that's an excellent idea, 'documenting existing operational practices,' which really helps frame new work in this area. I just want to add that this is more work for *someone*, by which I mean not me...I just have too much on my plate right now to do more than read and review. So I'm happy to accept whatever work in this area as can find willing authors. :) -- Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/ -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
Attachment:
pgpeeQ7886Is7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg