>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:35:29 -0700,
>>>>> David Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> This draft seems to adopt all the three approaches. Does this
>>> mean we gave up on choosing a single particular approach for this
>>> purpose, or even gave up on specifying one "default" approach? If
>>> so, then I guess implementors will need to implement all the
>>> approaches (if it needs implementation support) and/or operators
>>> will need to be familiar with all possible approaches. Is my
>>> understanding correct?
> No, not correct (at the very least, the conclusion that
> implementors will need to implement all approaches is neither
> specified nor mandated by this draft). The draft does not adopt any
> approach. Rather, it documents the different proposals. The IESG
> will use this information to determine how to move forward. The WGLC
> is being used to determine if the analysis of the attributes of the
> different approaches can be agreed upon (not which one should be
> adopted). Does this help?
Yes, thanks. Then I'd like the document to be more specific on this
point, including:
- add a note in Introduction like this:
This document is just an analysis of each possible approach, and
does not make any recommendation on particular one or on a
combination of particular ones. Some approaches may even not
adopted at all as a result of further discussion.
- revise sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.3, concentrating on the main
approach discussed in each section, rather than comparing the main
approach to other(s). In fact, in the current draft section 3.1.3
(slightly) sounds that the RA option is the preferable approach in
most cases but the DHCPv6 approach *may* have some applicability.
On the other hand, section 3.2.3 sounds that the DHCPv6 approach is
the generic one but the RA option can be preferable in some "special
applications". (See also my original comment 11).
I admit, however, this is perhaps just from my personal, biased
impression. So, I won't push it if I'm the only person who wants
this change.
- revise section 4 to clarify the consideration of the combination is
just an attempt to show a possible strategy *if we take all the
three approaches*. Perhaps we need a note like this:
Three approaches can work together for IPv6 host configuration of
DNS server. This section shows a consideration on how these
approaches can interwork each other. Note, however, that this
does not necessarily mean this document suggests adopting all the
three approaches and make them interwork in the way described
here. In fact, some approaches may even not adopted at all as a
result of further discussion.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
