Ted, I've read the draft again, and I think that there's only one place where you rely on having a ULA. So I'd suggest:
Section 3.3 point 2, replace "the homenet's ULA prefix" with "the homenet's ULA prefix (if any)". In Section 5.5, change "Homenets have at least one ULA prefix" with "Homenets usually have exactly one non-deprecated ULA prefix". The only place where you actually rely on a ULA is Section 4.7, paragraph 2. I have no idea what to do about that. Alternatives to this include making ULA generation a MUST in the HNCP RFC, or making naming support a SHOULD that depends on having a ULA. I hold a mild distaste for either of these possibilities, but I suppose I could live with either. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
