Re: 6MAN WG Adoption Call: draft-nordmark-6man-rs-refresh-01

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:35:15 +0900,
Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I think the root of my objections to this draft is that it proposes what is
> in effect a substantial change to the current configuration model in IPv6
> networks without saying so explicitly.
[...]
> If I am incorrect and the document is not proposing such a model, then it
> should not mention this as a possibility. But then we need to understand
> where the power savings are.

I'm not sure if these points are too critical to adopt the document,
but I guess it may be related to the higher-level question that I
asked in response to this call:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg22411.html
(and that hasn't been answered).

I was not sure if we had agreed on sufficient need for making
non-trivial (if not substantial) changes to a core part of the
protocol.  If what Lorenzo was trying to say is a different form of
what I tried to ask, I tend to agree with part of his argument.
Although I'm not necessarily opposed to adopting the document just
because of that, I think it's reasonable to request clarifying the
problem statement and expected goal.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya