Subject: Re: draft-yhb-6man-slaac-improvement-00

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 10:42:01 -0500

Much much Earlier, TJ wrote:
> To be (perhaps overly) blunt: IMHO the changes proposed 
> in this draft create unneeded confusion, solve a problem 
> that is either non-existent or is readily solved in other 
> ways and can create functional problems / detriments to 
> actual deployment.  

+1

Much Earlier, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> Since the IETF sets Internet standards, we can write exactly 
> what we want to. IETF standards are voluntary, so sites have 
> the right to ignore them too. However, if they do that,
> they will not be able to interoperate with the Internet.

+1

Earlier, Doug Barton wrote:
> SLAAC was not designed as a general-purpose mechanism, 
> and should not be modified (further) to be so.

+1

More recently, Mark Andrews wrote:
> I don't think this is something that needs to be solved
> as it is a non problem.

+1

There seems to be pretty broad agreement on this list that
this I-D is not an improvement, is not solving an actual problem, 
and that pursuing this draft is likely to create significant
new operational problems that are best avoided.

Yours,

Ran