[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-03.txt
Thanks, we will be looking forward to your feedback, and we hope to get
on the technical bugs implied. It is exactly the reason of creating this
as not all readers will have expertice of all created RFC's and drafts
about IPv6 of last few years.
As far i am aware we don't suggest or imply using ISATAP, CGA or
else... Master plan is to describe known considerations when creating
an address plan as the title implies.
Thanks again for you time to read/study the document and provide
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
Behalf Of Bound, Jim
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 4:58 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter; Bonness, Olaf
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-03.txt
I cannot support this spec moving forward without major changes to its
content I will provide more by tomorrow but here is major heartburn for
- Remove any mention of ISATAP this is not relative to the point of the
- Remove discussion of CGA this is not relative to the point of the
- Do not make statements about what the market is doing such as the
DHCPv6 statements because we cannot possibly represent all input from
the market within an IETF spec. And you say use CGA which has clearly
only research deployment where as DHCPv6 is far more deployed yet you do
not say CGA is unknown. Sounds like a bias to me.
I found other technical bugs and will get them out in a few days.
But this is not ready for the IESG or as spec that has consensus per the
V6OPS charter in my view.
The ULA, PI, PA and that type of recommendations are very good and that
is what the spec should stick too.