Re: Wrap up and last call: sin6_scope_id semantics

[Francis Dupont]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   I don't know if there is a requirement for the stability of ids
   that has bearing on this suggestion.

=> I believe there should be none because the stability requirement
should be for id names, not id values. Of course, we should recommend
to use always names too.

   That way ID(link2) = 2 even though interface #2 is gone.
   
=> the real issue is to get ID(link2) = 2 even though interface #2
is now affected to link333... Names are the solution there too!

Regards

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

PS: I believe our colleague Jinmei is waiting for a decision between
options A, B and C before producing a document... Please help him!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------