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

hi James,

i guess the overlapping was an accident, and i have seen again your
clarification and thanks.

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:09 PM, James Carlson <[email protected]>wrote:

> 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