Re: [dhcwg] Moving SeDHCPv6 forward

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

I would be really happy to see some more detail about the use cases that we've talked about and understand.   The reason I pushed back earlier is that the use cases that were described in the draft that was submitted for publication were theoretical and didn't make sense to me.   So I certainly don't object to some concrete use cases that we can describe clearly and that would actually be useful, and I think the cases you're talking about in your point A qualify.

I think your point B is worth pursuing if it can be done, but should be considered optional. We should not document anything that we don't clearly understand how to use.   But I agree that in principle this is worth doing, and would be happy to help try to do it.

To your point C, I think this is not a bad idea, but it may be better to talk about general processing rules separately from processing rules for specific use cases that we've identified.

I agree with point D, obviously. :)