Re: Proposed update to ULA Draft (-09)

[Bob Hinden]

Brian,
Or, to get this ID moving, remove both suggestions, and leave this
issue to be addressed somewhere else.
In my personal view, this would be the best course for now.  Later on it 
would be good to get feedback on how people deploy ULAs in operational 
networks.  For example, this might be a good activity for v6ops.
Actually, I would be surprised if there wasn't a lot of interest in 
tracking deployment and operational experience.
I guess. It's a shame this point didn't come up during Last Call.
If we change something other than what the IESG asked us to change,
we are on the edge of a process problem. I though that lower-case
"suggested" was OK - it's much weaker than an official SHOULD, which
would certainly be a mistake for the reasons Mark gave.
To clarify, I read Mark's text ("remove both suggestions") as "remove both 
of the suggestions he made in his email" and to not change the current 
text.  Mark should verify this.

I agree with your points that changing this text at this point will require 
going back to the ADs to revisit the issue and I don't think the further 
delay is worth it.

Bob





--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------