RE: PPP IPV6 Control Protocol Extensions for Prefix

I'll send modified draft sooner.
Of course I'll try to consider this draft  to meet with pppext

Regards

Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Platform Lab,SAMSUNG Electronics




-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Karl Fox
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 11:56 AM
To: James Carlson
Cc: [email protected]; 'Bernard Aboba'; [email protected]
Subject: RE: PPP IPV6 Control Protocol Extensions for Prefix


I believe consensus has emerged on both of these drafts.  Please make
any final arguments, as I'll be making a statement in a couple of days.

Karl

On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 16:07, James Carlson wrote:
> Glen Zorn writes:
> > I think that it would be a good thing, if possible, to raise the
level
> > of discussion about our draft above the level of blind ideology.  I
also
> > think it would be a good idea if the people making these ideological
> > arguments would actually read the document (WINS is not even
mentioned
> > therein).
> 
> Agreed, but that (omitting WINS) doesn't make this rehash of RFC 1877
> any more acceptable than it was the first time around.  Please see the
> archives.
> 
> Here's an excerpt from one of the relevant messages:
> 
>   From: Craig Fox <[email protected]>
>   Subject: Re: IPCP negotiation of router, DNS?
>   To: [email protected] (Andy Stadler)
>   Date: Fri, 10 Nov 95 15:14:04 PST
>   Cc: [email protected]
> [...]
>   Microsoft has proposed extensions to negotiate up to two DNS
addresses.
>   There is currently an internet-draft out.  I expect that it will
become
>   an informational RFC as it is used by Windows 95 and Windows NT
already.
>   
>   There has been no discussion, that I can remember, about
negotiatiing the
>   domain info.
>   
>   The consensus of the IETF PPP Working Group in the past is that DHCP
>   should be used to determine the DNS and domain info as well as other
>   high-level information.
> [...]
> 
> Here's what one of the implementors later had to say about RFC 1877:
> 
>   From: Gurdeep Singh Pall <[email protected]>
>   To: "'Ravindra C.P'" <[email protected]>,
>           "'[email protected]'"
>            <[email protected]>
>   Subject: RE: DNS address through IPCP ?
>   Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 10:35:29 -0700
>   
>   Windows 95 and Windows NT use IPCP options to request DNS and WINS
>   addresses from the peer. This behavior is specified in an
informational
>   document - RFC1877.
>   
>   It was agreed at Dallas '95 IETF that implementions should use the
new
>   DHCP-INFORM packet (a stateless configuration request sent after
IPCP is
>   up) to get DNS address and other configuration options. It was also
>   agreed that this information should be included in the new IPCP
i-ds.
>   
>   Gurdeep
>   
>   PS: Note that the DHCP-INFORM allows just the configuration options
to
>   be retrieved without the IP address. 
> 
> My reading of the record is that RFC 1877 was published as
> Informational mostly because it had already shipped, not because the
> working group agreed that it was the right thing to do.
> 
> Please describe what has changed in the last 8 years that makes
> negotiating application-layer details within in the link layer more
> acceptable today than it was the last time we discussed this.  I'm
> looking, but I just don't see it.