Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 01:36:50 +0900
From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?=
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The majority is those who support A.
Actually, it wasn't, you had 4 supporting A, and 4 not supporting A.
A might have more support than either of the others, but not majority
support...
I'm not sure I know or care enough about this to offer an opinion, but
I would like to ask a question ....
| A) Using the "flat 32", the zone indices are as follows:
|
| ID(intf1) = 1, ID(intf2) = 2, ..., ID(intf5) = 5
| ID(link1) = 1, ID(link2) = 2, ..., ID(link4) = 4
| ID(site1) = 1, ID(site2) = 2
Would another variation of that approach result in ID(site2) == 5
and ID(link4) == 5 ?
And I don't care if ID(link2) is 2 or 3, and whether ID(site1) is
1 2 3 or 4.
That is, pick the scope identifier of a lower level object that is within
the higher level object as the identifier for that object.
That is to avoid the problem where "1" means one place in one context
and somewhere totally different in another. Instead "2" in link context
would mean a particular link, in site context it would mean a collection
of links, but the link "2" would certainly be one of them.
With things defined that way, I think A would suit me just fine
(not that I'd count my opinion on this issue), without it, I think
I'd prefer B or C, just so the ambiguity is avoided.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
