Re: FYI, draft-qin-pppext-ipv6-addr-pref-00//FW: I-D Action:draft-huang-ipv6cp-options-00.txt

Jacni Qin wrote:
> sorry that i missed the discussion, 
> 
> we also think that the necessary extensions of IPv6CP should be done, and a draft has been posted in Jan.
> 
> please refer to:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-qin-pppext-ipv6-addr-pref-00

Are you just pointing out the overlap in these two documents, or are you
requesting that we go ahead to try to determine whether consensus exists
on either of these or on some other document?

I suggest that if there's a community for this sort of extension, then
it would be very good for the proponents to get together and propose a
single coherent document rather than intermittent individual
contributions.  It would be even better if that combined document had a
clear and compelling argument that explains why the existing mechanisms
used on all other media are insufficient for PPP links, and thus a new
mechanism is required.

I'm unconvinced that there's any need for either of the mechanisms
proposed, but I'm certainly willing to call for consensus on these as
working group items, if you feel you're ready.

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext