Brian, I completely disagree that we understand enough about zones to recommend it to anyone. We need to find a middle ground here. The spirit of the spec at this point was not that IPv4 was a hack but correct for what it did. If we want to change that it will require much discussion and may not be appropriate for rfc2553. I would like to hear a lot of discussion on this from the working group. Before this change will be supported. regards, /jim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: rfc2553bis comments Francis Dupont
- Re: rfc2553bis comments Francis Dupont
- Re: rfc2553bis comments Steve Deering
- Re: rfc2553bis commen... Francis Dupont
- Re: rfc2553bis commen... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: rfc2553bis co... Steve Deering
- Re: rfc2553bis co... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- RE: rfc2553bis comments Richard Draves
- RE: rfc2553bis comments Steve Deering
- RE: rfc2553bis comments Brian Zill
- Re: rfc2553bis comments Jim Bound
- Re: rfc2553bis comments Francis Dupont
- RE: rfc2553bis comments Tim Hartrick
- RE: rfc2553bis comments Steve Deering
- Re: rfc2553bis comments Francis Dupont
- RE: rfc2553bis comments JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: rfc2553bis comments Francis Dupont
- Re: rfc2553bis comments JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: rfc2553bis comments Francis Dupont
- RE: rfc2553bis comments Steve Deering
- Re: rfc2553bis comments Francis Dupont
