Re: [dhcwg] Re: WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsconfig-02.txt

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

> Often, seeminly unreasonable configurations are the result of trying
> to patch around a problem elsewhere.

I.e., they're not something with which a standards body need 
necessarily concern itself.   ;')

To be less provocative, my point is that if we are using DHCPv6, we 
probably are expecting that the IPv6 infrastructure we are using works. 
   If not, why are we trying to use it?   If it's broken, isn't the 
right answer to fix it?   I'm not saying you shouldn't kludge around 
problems like this when you're trying to get other work done, but when 
I kludge around an infrastructure problem, what I normally do is some 
kind of ugly hack that I wouldn't want to see in a standard anyway.

Since Ralph has already declared rough consensus on this point, I think 
there's no point in discussing it further anyway.   :'}

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg