Re: Wrap up and last call: sin6_scope_id semantics

[Francis Dupont]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   Aside from this particular issue, it seems that MIB guys also want
   zone IDs that can identify particular scope types.
   
=> ah! They want zone IDs which stand by themselves.

   This should basically be the same idea as B.  So I guess supporters of
   B do not oppose to this (I hope not, actually).

=> no opposition! Where I can sign? (:-)
   
   Can we (especially those who support C) make a compromise on this with
   this plan?

=> I believe C is not for the basic API but we can open a new activity
about C in the advanced API (C people will propose things, A people will
reject proposals which are not useful, B people will take holidays :-)?

Thanks

[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------