On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:07:32AM -0400, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
I also think that expecting to live in a clean world (whether
EITHER RAs
OR DHCP are ONLY used) is unrealistic.
Therefore, I think the draft needs to address this as it has little
benefit to just declare this as "out-of-scope". Perhaps it can be
I would like to amplify this with a little bit more specific ideas for
progress.
Make no attempt to address the issue in this draft, outside of a very
generic description of what the parameter contents are used for.
Whoever is actually interested in the perpetual circular discussion of
which configuration parameter should take precedence over others,
because obviously there is a one-size-fits-all answer for that
(sarcasm), take that to v6ops, and write any drafts there, citing this
draft's RFC # along with any other sources of configuration.
This cleanly segregates the /software/ requirements (DHC scope) from
the /operational/ requirements (v6ops scope), and it would permit
folks like me to say our software conforms with this RFC specification
without having to ensure it is only installed in complying operating
systems, and used in complying networks.
In essence, it makes neighbor discovery an informative reference, not
a normative reference, so that the stated requirement (to run DHCPv6
in an environment with no RAs) can be accomplished without unused
software.
addressed in a separate document, but I don't think we should advance
this work until that document is also available.
Provided we elide the operations discussion for v6ops to solve (or
not, as the case may be), I see no reason to delay this work.
--
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
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg