RE: RFC 5006 status

["STARK, BARBARA H (ATTLABS)" <bs7652@att.com>]

> The standard needs only to say that:
> - Routers MAY send RAs containing stateless DNS options
> - Hosts MAY be ready to receive stateless DNS options in RAs
> - IF THEY DO, it MUST be with the approved format.
> (And, for this, the format proposed by Suresh is so obvious and simple
> that I doubt there would be any competitive proposals)
> 
> This being done, one can expect that all vendors of products that send
> and/or receive RAs will eventually add this simple capability to their
> products, making things more efficient and simpler in many
> circumstances.

Thus doubling the complexity of the devices that now have to support *both* DHCPv6 stateless and RAs for receiving/sending that *identical* info, and greatly increasing the difficulty of troubleshooting problems (because 2 solutions now exist where there used to just be one). What we have today is simple. It sounds to me like the question being asked is "why keep it simple when you can make it more complex?" In my case, "it" refers to the overall ecosystem of protocols.
Barbara