This issue claims that use case #1 could be resolved using a different type of mechanism.
My opinion: Since the WG is chartered, explicitly, to standardize a DHCPv6 Route Option and is not currently chartered to document other solutions to the same problem, it is not necessary for us to justify this work item at this point -- that was done at the time that we were chartered to do the work. My suggestion would be that we close this issue with no changes to the document. Thoughts? Margaret _______________________________________________ mif mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
