Subject: [mif] #14: use case #6 is insufficient and should be removed

From: "mif issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 08:22:00 -0000

#14: use case #6 is insufficient and should be removed

 Use case #6 speculates "we cannot assume all the VPN network only use RA".
 This statement lacks evidence.

 Why can we not expect them to support RAs?  Why can we expect that they
 would support this DHCPv6 option?

 There's no convincing technical reason in this use case why it should be
 preferred nor why the IETF should prefer it.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  ek@…         |      Owner:  draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-
     Type:  defect       |  option@…
 Priority:  major        |     Status:  new
Component:  dhcpv6       |  Milestone:
  -route-option          |    Version:
 Severity:  -            |   Keywords:
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/14>
mif <http://tools.ietf.org/mif/>