Francis, > In your previous mail you wrote: > > But I don't really care about your opinion or others on > what should be > used or not used from the work we do in the IETF. > > => I disagree: the resources of IETF are not infinite so waste is > a common concern.
We are talking about use not a standard. Thats none of the IETFs business formally. We have enough work in the formal IETF charter work load, at least I do. Plus the only resources used for "use" are those who ship products and the network operators that use them. > > What I care about is if you find a technical hole or error in our > protocol specifications or interoperablity issues. > > => I'd like to see any of the security concerns of > draft-prigent-dhcpv6-threats-00.txt addressed, or > a proof that "the capability of automatic allocation of > reusable network addresses" has a meaning for IPv6 addresses > (note that we have 5 years of proof of the opposite). Differentiate the need for an Intranet vs an Internet. Most DHC is deployed on Intranets. Ralph has responded to you and I concur. /jim > > Regards > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
