Determining WG consensus on Issue 226: RFC 3576bis and Renumbering

[Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>]

We have been discussing this issue for a while.  The time has come to lay out the potential solutions and get a sense of the WG consensus on this issue. 

In preparation for determining WG consensus, I'd like to articulate the potential choices for resolving this issue, then attempt to determine whether there is a "rough consensus". 

Here is what I have so far:

1. Allow
Framed-IP-Address/Framed-IPv6-Prefix/Framed-Identifier attributes in
Disconnect-Request & CoA-Request packets, only for
identification.   Changing the address would require a
Service-Type=Authorize Only.  This was what we had in -05.

2.
Allow Framed-IP-Address/Framed-IPv6-Prefix/Framed-Identifier attributes
in Disconnect-Requests for identification.  In CoA-Request packets
allow them only for address change.  

3. Allow Framed-IP-Address/Framed-IPv6-Prefix/Framed-Identifier
address attributes in Disconnect-Request & CoA-Request packets only
for address change.  Invent new attributes for identification.  This
was initially proposed for -07. 

4. Allow Framed-IP-Address/Framed-IPv6-Prefix/Framed-Identifier
address attributes in Disconnect-Request & CoA-Request packets only
for identification.  Invent new attributes for address change. 

5. Prohibit use of Framed-IP-Address/Framed-IPv6-Prefix/Framed-Identifier
attributes for session identification.  Permit their use only in
CoA-Request packets, for use in address change.  This is what we have
in -07. 

Are there any more potential solutions?