Re: [Pppext] FYI, draft-qin-pppext-ipv6-addr-pref-00//FW: I-D Action:draft-huang-ipv6cp-options-00.txt

Jacni Qin <jacniq@gmail.com> Thu, 11 March 2010 13:29 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=G+oVc2kNWLsQUjsgcJrXBDz0LHjkdWeWVVOGOQzcX8R2kROIvRqUk2VDzql0Eh4cBb EzAqnmiggTW22JmXWjpKLgDmGUZhWJCrYUoIGA3oAhisrTGSMvGTcd45mDaBy3Wzh5by 1jSe+ev2EVaLnNlh2TshaLAPr5HC7wKhkHjsM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4B98EB7D.8010900@workingcode.com>
References: <e1a14dfb1003090047p3d3786a6h8663c0c8ebfb30bc@mail.gmail.com> <4B98EB7D.8010900@workingcode.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:29:57 +0800
Message-ID: <e1a14dfb1003110529j3db04f15qa2e0b58eeb950a9b@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jacni Qin <jacniq@gmail.com>
To: James Carlson <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015173ffacc3cbbf4048186699f"
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
Precedence: list

hi James,

i guess the overlapping was an accident, and i have seen again your
clarification and thanks.

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:09 PM, James Carlson <carlsonj@workingcode.com>wrote:

> 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>
>

[Pppext] FYI, draft-qin-pppext-ipv6-addr-pref-00/… Jacni Qin
Re: [Pppext] FYI, draft-qin-pppext-ipv6-addr-pref… James Carlson
Re: [Pppext] FYI, draft-qin-pppext-ipv6-addr-pref… Jacni Qin