Re: [savi] A few comments on draft-vogt-savi-framework

[Alberto García <alberto at it.uc3m.es>]

Hi

|  -----Mensaje original-----
|  De: savi-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:savi-bounces at ietf.org] En nombre de
|  Christian Vogt
|  Enviado el: jueves, 29 de octubre de 2009 21:24
|  Para: Marcelo Bagnulo Braun
|  CC: SAVI Mailing List
|  Asunto: Re: [savi] A few comments on draft-vogt-savi-framework
|  
|  
|  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?

Fully agree. It should be stated which is preferred over what, and a good
place for this is the framework document.
And I still believe that there is much more to detail after the general
scheme of prioritization has been stated. In particular, for SEND and SLAAC
interaction (maybe not for DHCP, this should be studied).

Regards,
Alberto

|  
|  - Christian
|  
|  
|  _______________________________________________
|  savi mailing list
|  savi at ietf.org
|  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi