RE: Open issues list? [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review]

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>]

As usual, I have to thank Brian for another email.  I am also planning
for the day when one day this document becomes a WG document.  Folks
should realize we'll thrash forever soon as someone proposes including 4
ports on the CPE Router, someone else will say 5 or 6 - even specifying
"at least" 4 ports is the same slippery slope.  The number of LAN ports
is best left to the vendors to differentiate their products in any way
they want. 

Thanks.

Hemant 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:07 AM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Open issues list? [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router
draft is available for review]

On 2008-07-31 20:14, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> 
>> The CPE Router will NOT mandate how many LAN ports does the device 
>> have
> 
> I didn't ask for "mandate". I just thought the scenario is not an 
> obvious one and would make sense to have it in some kind of 
> informational section or separate document, but you seem very adamant 
> that it doesn't apply...
> 
>> Please rest your case.  That's the most the CPE Router will specify.
> 
> Well then.

Actually, if this is to become a WG draft, it will specify whatever the
WG consensus turns out to be. fwiw, my view is that Hemant is correct,
and it isn't for the IETF to specify how many ports a vendor might
choose to include in their product. (Of course, if it's going to be an
independent submission, the draft can say whatever its authors want.)

     Brian