IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Thoughts on draft-yourtchenko-ra-dhcpv6-comparison

Andrew Yourtchenko <ayourtch@cisco.com> Mon, 16 December 2013 14:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ayourtch@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1997E1AE32A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 06:09:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.439
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 nVymUnw4ObNO for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 06:09:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A221ADFE5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 06:09:08 -0800 (PST)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from stew-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rBGE97fM025274 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:09:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.61.167.202] ([10.61.167.202]) by stew-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rBGE93cH023590; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:09:04 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:09:01 +0000
From: Andrew Yourtchenko <ayourtch@cisco.com>
X-X-Sender: ayourtch@ayourtch-mac
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1A3AA08-F644-4C43-87DA-06028A781166@nominum.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1312161404260.40639@ayourtch-mac>
References: <CAKD1Yr0evKjEEvErq3T=nU6_joat8duseraJJDZ4OHPK9NGWDA@mail.gmail.com> <D1A3AA08-F644-4C43-87DA-06028A781166@nominum.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (OSX 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Thoughts on draft-yourtchenko-ra-dhcpv6-comparison
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:09:10 -0000

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013, Ted Lemon wrote:

> On Dec 16, 2013, at 5:48 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
>> I think that at least initially, what we should try to achieve is a comparison of the properties of the protocols themselves, not make recommendations of which to use.
> +1
>
>> Second: some of the text you have now deals with link-layer performance. However, I think that since these are configuration protocols, the attributes that are important are primarily semantics, not performance or implementation.
>
> Lorenzo, this is kind of a puzzling position to take.   There are lots 
>of ways to do things with really nice semantics that fall on their face 
>for performance reasons.   So I think performance questions are in scope.

Ted,

I've taken the interaction with the underlying levels out for now:

pragmatically, it reduces the number of things to have the consensus on 
(assuming that there is a consensus that we need to have a consensus :).

When/if we discover that everyone's in violent agreement, we add them 
back. What do you think ?

--a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email