>I would personally rather drop prefix management. At least, the current >proposed solution is DHCPv6 PD plus lot of marketing plus one extra thing >(role) minus tons of existing functionality. I would rather stick the role >into PD, >than reinvent the protocol.
DHCPv6 PD has only solve the prefix request and assign process based on the preconditions: a) the requesting router knows the prefix length it should request; b) the requesting router knows what device to send the request; c) The requested device have enough resource for the request. However, human configuration or human intervention are needed to meet these preconditions. The current proposed solution focuses on to autonomic processes to solve these preconditions. Best regards, Sheng >If there is not something more novel there (that is, not hierarchical PD in >disguise), I do not see the point. > >> Also, The HOMENET collaboration has been stressed in the charter. >> >> 3. Others >> I believe I took care of the others changes proposed on the mailing. If this >> is >not the case, let me know. >> At this point in time, please provide concrete change to the charter text if >some issues persist. >> Charter v15 has just been posted, and you can review the detailed changes >at >https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fd >oc%2Fcharter-ietf-anima%2Fwithmilestones-00-14.txt&difftype=--html&sub >mit=Go!&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-a >nima%2Fwithmilestones-00-15.txt > >I think it is mostly fine, although the use of term ‘autonomous’ for >essentially (on high level) managed devices that perform some low-level >autonomic functions sounds still strange to me. I guess I could live with it >though. > >Cheers, > >-Markus > > >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >homenet@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
