To:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H(B
<jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
Date:
Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:28:36 +0900
In-Reply-To:
<20031112160616.GI7470@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) Emacs/21.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
Subject:
Re: DNS discovery
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:06:16 +0000, >>>>> Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> said: > Lets get the client support and dhcpv6 lite server and relay agents > implemented (Itojun said 13K lines of code for all?) and some experience > to base future work on. I concur (actually I've already concurred with you on this point). I don't think we can reach a consensus by continuing this discussion that would include another round of pros and cons comparison. I know someone pointed out in the 2nd dnsop meeting that it's not wise to rush into a conclusion. Still, I don't think we'll find a tie-breaker by continuing the discussion. I also know there is some misunderstanding about the basic specification in this thread (such as confusion about the "M" and "O" flags of router advertisement messages). And I'm not claiming I'm an exception; I admit I may also misunderstand some technical points. Still, I don't think clarifications on these points can be a tie-breaker. No one will win this battle, and the loser will be IPv6 (by the delay of deployment). Sadly, I cannot think of a good tool to break through the situation. One typical approach might be to let the chairs decide (I'm not saying this because I expect the chairs would pick up the one I support:-), but this is probably against the IETF's convention. JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.