On Mar 4, 2011, at 7:32 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote: > > [...] but instead suggesting that the WG carefully consider whether a > proposed change/addition is really useful and whether it needs to be > undertaken now/soon as part of considering each proposed change/addition to > the IPv6 specifications. [...]
And on that note, let me hereby register my opposition to the adoption of this draft as a working group item on the grounds that this change is not sufficiently useful to justify such a late change to the core protocol specification. Enterprise networks should expect to pay for the proper costs of auditing, and if that includes the cost of requiring every host to use DHCPv6 to obtain both temporary and persistent addresses, then that's an adequate solution to the auditing problem without requiring any change to the core specifications. -- james woodyatt <j...@apple.com> member of technical staff, core os networking -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
