Re: [mif] ways forward( was: Summary issues after meeting, draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04)

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 30/03/2012 14:58, Ted Lemon a écrit :
> Alexandru, I think the major misunderstanding here has to do with
> your use case.   The route option as it was floated was not
> originally intended to address your use case, and when it was changed
> to address your use case, it got a lot less popular.   Thiss was not
> because there's anything wrong with your use case, but because it
> came to be perceived as more applicable to use cases where, from an
> architectural perspective, the IETF would prefer to use RA.   That
> is, it came to be perceived as a generic replacement for RA, which
> wasn't what the working group set out to do.

It doesnt sound pleasant to me to hear so.

But let's talk in terms of next steps.

I remember having insisted on default routes at a time when 
draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option-05 was out, or even earlier.

Do you think it is that which may have induced later disapproval?

Would this imply to suggest next steps of route-option without default 
routes?  I would not oppose such way forward.

What would be the possible ways forward?

Alex