Re: other comments on draft-nielsen-v6ops-3GPP-zeroconf-goals-00. txt

[Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>]

Pekka Savola wrote:

> One comment on a comment,
>
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Karen E. Nielsen (AH/LMD) wrote:
>
> > > Tunnel end-point discovery
> > > -------------------------------------
> > > This document should also reference
> > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yamamoto-naptr-service-
> > > discovery-00.txt
> >
> > Yes, now it should. Thanks.
> >
> > Let me and the other authors think about how it should be put 
> > exactly, I have a small concern with this in the 3gpp environment due 
> > to RT delays (more or that to come).
>
>
> Let me disagree here, rather strongly.
>
> The requirements document like this should not point at various 
> solutions documents.  In the case of tunnel endpoint discovery, we 
> have a good document (draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc-00.txt) -- which 
> could include more discussion relating to draft-yamamoto-, but there 
> is no need to refer to that *HERE*.

We might be in violent agreement. My point is that either the 
requirement specs reference
all possible solutions or none and stick to requirements.
Referencing only one potential solution is wrong.
That said, I agree that all the tunnel end point discovery solutions 
should be merged.

   - Alain.