Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31

[Qi Sun <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

I support this document to move forward.


Best Regards,
Qi 


On 2014-1-18, at 上午5:50, Tomek Mrugalski wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> Authors and chairs feel that draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04
> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration/) is
> ready for WGLC. Please post your comment by end of January.
> 
> If you support this draft moving forward, please say so. If you object
> this draft moving forward, please explain your concerns. Please limit
> your posts to technical comments and skip your personal preferences. "I
> like the other solution better" is not a technical comment.
> 
> Please note that:
> - Softwires WG is expecting an answer from DHC WG on how to configure
> IPv4 devices in IPv6-only networks. We should answer that question.
> 
> - There is a temptation to sneak in certain A+P pieces here. We must not
> do that. This is related, but a different problem. Let's solve one issue
> at a time.
> 
> - -04 features an update that is a result of some off the list
> discussions. In essence, the addition is "if possible, use native DHCPv4
> without modifications. If not, here's what DHC recommends:
> DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6".
> 
> With my DHC chair hat off, I'd like to ask you to do your best to not
> reopen the discussion of solution X being marginally better over Y in
> scenario Z. Yes, we can keep coming up with new metrics that would prove
> whatever metric inventor wants to prove. But that will lead us nowhere.
> There is probably no single solution that will be the best in every
> possible deployment scenario. We discussed that for over a year (much
> more if you take into account Softwire discussions). It's a high time to
> wrap things up here and move on.
> 
> Bernie & Tomek
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg