Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

"Fred L. Templin" wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > "Fred L. Templin" wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >>Summary - the wording in sections (1) and (7) seems to mandate
> >>lowest-common-denominator solutions and ignore solutions that
> >>provide a better fit.
> >
> >
> > It's hard to avoid special pleading (since the transition solution
> > with my name on it is in the list), but I do think that there is a strong
> > argument for concentrating on LCD solutions for the first wave.
> 
> I'm sorry; the text of sections (1) and (7) I was commenting on refers
> to selection criteria for *new* mechanisms - I had no intention of
> labeling the set of solutions already accepted to the wg as "LCD".

LCD may be a wrong characterisation of them, but one assumes they
were chosen because they were believed to be relatively simple
and universal.

   Brian