Re: [Pppext] FYI, draft-qin-pppext-ipv6-addr-pref-00//FW: I-D Action:draft-huang-ipv6cp-options-00.txt
James Carlson <carlsonj@workingcode.com> Thu, 11 March 2010 13:10 UTC
Return-Path: <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
X-Original-To: pppext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pppext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071103A68C9 for <pppext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:10:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eLA6KHZY+URe for <pppext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:10:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from carlson.workingcode.com (carlsonj-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1d9::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F109D3A690A for <Pppext@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:09:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.50.23.149] (gate.abinitio.com [65.170.40.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by carlson.workingcode.com (8.14.2+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2BD9HYv024006 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:09:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4B98EB7D.8010900@workingcode.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:09:17 -0500
From: James Carlson <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jacni Qin <jacniq@gmail.com>
References: <e1a14dfb1003090047p3d3786a6h8663c0c8ebfb30bc@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e1a14dfb1003090047p3d3786a6h8663c0c8ebfb30bc@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-DCC-EATSERVER-Metrics: carlson; whitelist
Cc: Pppext@ietf.org, liyc@gsta.com, ylq@zte.com.cn
Subject: Re: [Pppext] FYI, draft-qin-pppext-ipv6-addr-pref-00//FW: I-D Action:draft-huang-ipv6cp-options-00.txt
X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PPP Extensions <pppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>, <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pppext>
List-Post: <mailto:pppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>, <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:10:08 -0000
Jacni Qin wrote: > sorry that i missed the discussion, > > we also think that the necessary extensions of IPv6CP should be done, and a draft has been posted in Jan. > > please refer to: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-qin-pppext-ipv6-addr-pref-00 Are you just pointing out the overlap in these two documents, or are you requesting that we go ahead to try to determine whether consensus exists on either of these or on some other document? I suggest that if there's a community for this sort of extension, then it would be very good for the proponents to get together and propose a single coherent document rather than intermittent individual contributions. It would be even better if that combined document had a clear and compelling argument that explains why the existing mechanisms used on all other media are insufficient for PPP links, and thus a new mechanism is required. I'm unconvinced that there's any need for either of the mechanisms proposed, but I'm certainly willing to call for consensus on these as working group items, if you feel you're ready. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <carlsonj@workingcode.com>