> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis Dupont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:40 AM
> To: JINMEI Tatuya / ????
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Wrap up and last call: sin6_scope_id semantics
>
> 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.
Yes, where you have a zone ID without an address.
> 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? (:-)
Same for supporters of C. (But yes, this is one of the reasons A is
at the very bottom of my list).
> Can we (especially those who support C) make a compromise on this
with
> this plan?
Sorry, what was "this"?
> => 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
:-)?
If B were the standard interoperable thing, but C would also be legal
behavior (since it's a superset of B behavior) for an implementation,
that
would be fine by me.
-Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
