Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-06.txt

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:19:37 +0000,
"Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> But because we're making changes to the specifications (i.e., revised sections of 3315, 3633, and even in some cases providing text for possible use in the 3315bis work), we are indeed trying to cover all IA_* options (while we hope it includes future possible IA_* options, that is more difficult to achieve as we don't know what those might be).
>
> >Can I assume that this draft tries to provide a generalized specification for all current and possible IA_xx
[...]
> Bottom line is that yes we are trying to accommodate all (existing) IA_* types. And, in general we've assumed that 3315 has handled IA_NA/IA_TA co-existence sufficiently, so the revised text focuses on included IA_PD handling.

The nuance is subtle here, so please let me be sure: which one is
(more) correct?
1. this draft excludes the applicability to future possible IA_XXs
   (i.e., it only covers IA_NA, IA_TA, and IA_PD, and the main
   motivation is the concurrent use of IA_NA and IA_PD).
2. this draft intends to be applicable to future possible IA_XXs,
   even if this is currently just a hope (since we don't know the
   future possibilities right now) and may turn out to be infeasible.

My initial interpretation was #2.  Am I correct?

--
JINMEI, Tatuya