On Oct 28, 2009, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >> For this case, we need a prioritization of which address assignment >> methods take precedence over which other address assignment methods. >> And you are right that the definition of this prioritization will >> require care. >> > > yes, moreover, we need to figure if it is enough with a prioritazation > or we need to change the mechanisms in order to interact properly. > As i > stated earlier (and eric noted before me), we certainly need to update > send savi to properly interact with the slaac savi (at least, haven't > doen the analysis for dhcp savi yet) Correct; the prioritization may affect the protocol specifications (SLAAC, DHCP, SEND) just as well as it affects the framework document. My suggestion -- as a working group member, not as a chair -- is that the framework document should talk about the prioritization conceptually, whereas the protocol specifications need to include the details that implement the prioritization. Thoughts? - Christian
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.