Re: [v6ops] RFC7084

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 13 December 2013 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 056A21AD959; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 06:56:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h3u0H1fAvFQQ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 06:56:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og109.obsmtp.com (exprod7og109.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AECC81A1F3E; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 06:56:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob109.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUqsgHfyxprQtz5kk/753keEHLBTwPeQJ@postini.com; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 06:56:29 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52EBF1B82DE; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 06:56:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C809190043; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 06:56:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vpna-132.vpn.nominum.com (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 06:56:29 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7084
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <A639F21E-6004-4D23-AA50-A5D03BB26FDE@employees.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:56:23 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <160F8C4E-7523-41FE-8CEA-9528F737D486@nominum.com>
References: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DC7BB@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611303B0269@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DCD72@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312100803370.24602@uplift.swm.pp.se> <F92E1B55-C74B-400C-B83E-6B50D175D121@steffann.nl> <7B4820C5-B562-4BE7-8C6A-CBCDABC39728@nominum.com> <A583EFC3-71BB-4962-875C-4AB775D13491@delong.com> <46BE373C-D476-4D83-B014-56B77FD3D67E@nominum.com> <39280481-09C5-41ED-B79E-99DBBD329F44@employees.org> <52A8343C.3040202@gmail.com> <CAAedzxq6ym-uZJQVC7JTMgKnETpGiNt3JCmkJeGW2MVnw+sixA@mail.gmail.com> <73C046AB-7CC3-499D-B737-A9ECBD3963D4@nominum.com> <A639F21E-6004-4D23-AA50-A5D03BB26FDE@employees.org>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:56:37 -0000

On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:02 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> then you're understanding of "usual" is different from mine. :-)

I mean "the concern that is usually raised."

> we should be more concerned about this idea of using one protocol to provision another.
> in this case ND to configure DHCP. is that a good design principle to follow?

It's a bit late to be asking that question.