Subject: [mif] #13: motivation use case #10 is self-referential

From: "mif issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 07:20:18 -0000

#13: motivation use case #10 is self-referential

 This argument of the form "if X, which creates a conflict, then X breaks
 the conflict, therefore justifying X in the first place".  That seems
 extremely weak as a motivation, and should be removed from this section.

 Further on, the document appears to be somewhat in conflict with itself.
 The -05 version of section 7.1 says "Information received via Route
 Options over DHCPv6 MUST be treated equally to routing information
 obtained via other sources."

 For "tie-breaking" behaviour, would the DHCPv6-learned routes not need to
 take precedence?

 Summary recommendation: remove the motivation, clarify conflict
 resolution.

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

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/13>
mif <http://tools.ietf.org/mif/>