>>>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:11:12 -0700,
>>>>> "Dave Thaler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 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"?
Sorry for the ambiguous wording. I just meant taking the idea from
- take 4+28 split.
...
- when a zone ID is used with an address (typically in the sockaddr_in6
structure), the scope type of the ID must be equal to the scope type
of the address.
in my original message, and revising the scoping architecture draft
accordingly.
>> => 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.
I think I'm okay with this, as long as we clearly note that C does not
necessarily provide portability and that portable applications should
stick to B.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
