In your previous mail you wrote:
> Your proposal is simply too inflexible and I don't understand why
> we can get a policy per user, environment, ... and not a flag.
Actually, the draft says:
IPv6 implementations SHOULD support configurable address selection
via a mechanism at least as powerful as the policy tables defined
here. If an implementation is not configurable or has not been
configured, then it SHOULD operate according to the algorithms
specified here in conjunction with the following default policy
table:
So if you believe the policy table mechanisms in the draft are too
inflexible for mobility, then you are free to invent & implement more
powerful mechanisms.
=> Will the draft go in the standard track or be published as informational?
In the first case you should not use this kind of answers, in the second
case at least two documents for the standard track (6to4 and privacy IID)
depend on your draft...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
