Re: [dhcwg] Review of Service-Discovery-Type options in DHCP

> Let me try to make it simple. The technical point I was trying to make
> was:
> Distinguish between the configuration probelm from the naming problem.

I'm sorry, but this is not a technical argument.   It is a statement of 
opinion.   You are saying that there are two separate problems - 
configuration and naming.   You then describe what you think these problems 
are.   Nowhere do you explain why you think this way of framing the problem 
is correct - you simply assert that it is correct and then explain the 
problem as you see it in more detail.   This is not constructive.

Let me make two observations:

1. There is more than one functional way to state the problem.
2. We don't have to pick only one solution.

It is quite possible that your statement of what the problem is is a 
functional one.   The mere fact that this is so, if it is so, does not mean 
that the way the DHCPv6 group has been framing the problem is *not* a 
functional one.   So advancing this as a reason not to support service 
location options in DHCPv6 doesn't work.   If you think this is the right 
way to solve the problem, go off and write up some drafts, and try to 
advance them in the DNSEXT working group.   But don't say to us, "you must 
stop trying to solve this problem, because I am trying to solve it and my 
way is better."   When you say that, you are simply stating your opinion, 
and that is not a valid reason for us to stop doing what we are doing, 
unless we happen to agree with you without needing to be convinced.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg