Much much Earlier, TJ wrote: > To be (perhaps overly) blunt: IMHO the changes proposed > in this draft create unneeded confusion, solve a problem > that is either non-existent or is readily solved in other > ways and can create functional problems / detriments to > actual deployment.
+1 Much Earlier, Brian Carpenter wrote: > Since the IETF sets Internet standards, we can write exactly > what we want to. IETF standards are voluntary, so sites have > the right to ignore them too. However, if they do that, > they will not be able to interoperate with the Internet. +1 Earlier, Doug Barton wrote: > SLAAC was not designed as a general-purpose mechanism, > and should not be modified (further) to be so. +1 More recently, Mark Andrews wrote: > I don't think this is something that needs to be solved > as it is a non problem. +1 There seems to be pretty broad agreement on this list that this I-D is not an improvement, is not solving an actual problem, and that pursuing this draft is likely to create significant new operational problems that are best avoided. Yours, Ran -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
