Re: Adoption Call for "Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash Renumbering Events"

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

>    I think there are parts of the
>    document that many participants agree on, and we should keep
>    them, so the document can advance more easily.  It seems pretty
>    likely to me that if we remove section 4.5 from the document,
>    a lot of the objections would go away and we would end up with
>    a document that would be much more likely to be adopted without
>    controversy, and advance to publication quickly and without lots
>    of disagreement.  We can always put the more controversial
>    changes into a separate document which then can be debated
>    separately.

In my opinion, Section 4.5 is that part that actually solves the problem, 
i.e. how can a host handle a flash renumbering situation.

I do not object moving the changes to valid and preferred times to a 
separate document, however, that doesn't deal with problem that this document
tries to solve.

My recollection of the IPv6-only flag is that it failed in sunset4 and then
failed here as well. Note that during the IPv6-only flag discussion it was
proposed that DHCPv4 was used to signal lack of IPv4, which was reject by the 
authors. It is not a surprise that a solution that involves DHCPv4 met a lot
less resistance, however the IPv6-only DHCP option does not solve what the
authors of the IPv6-only flag tried to do.

If we only a adopt a document when it has rough consensus, then why adopt a
document at all, and not go to WGLC directly?