Re: Policy of IPv6 DNS Discovery

["Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <paul@etri.re.kr>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Austein" <sra+dnsop@hactrn.net>
To: <dnsop@cafax.se>
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: Policy of IPv6 DNS Discovery
> 
> I'm not sure why you insist on a public repetition of an exchange that
> you and I already had when you pestered me about this in private, but
> whatever.
> 

If I bothered you, I am sorry for that.
However, I wanted you, as DNSOP chair, join the discussion more actively.

> The reason why this topic was moved from the IPv6 WG to the DNSOP WG
> was to force a real discussion of requirements before proposing
> solutions.  In particular, we're required to answer the question which
> the IPv6 WG declined to ask: given DHCPv6 (including DHCPv6-lite),
> what real need is there for further work in this space?  This
> discussion is finally taking place on the DNSOP mailing list, albiet
> in fits and starts.  Discussion of new protocol extensions (such as
> your draft) will be in scope (for some WG, probably not DNSOP) if and
> only if this discussion concludes that there's a gap between real
> requirements and existing protocols.

I have two questions to ask you.
1. Do you mean that RA-based DNS Discovery is out of scope in DNSOP wg?
2. Do you think that DHCPv6-lite is necessary in the environment where DHCPv6 exists?

For the second question, IMHO, in such a case, DHCPv6-lite is unnecessary.
RA-based approach seeks to harmonize with DHCPv6.
Is this non-sense?

/Jaehoon Paul

> #----------------------------------------------------------------------
> # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.
> 

#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.