On Thursday, 08/30/2001 at 12:08 ZE9, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to propose the following approach: > > - the scoping architecture draft only defines the numerical zone IDs > and their aliases for readability (like "site1") This is fine. I've never really objected to the aliases, I just don't find them very useful.
> - the scoping architecture draft does NOT define the zone "names", but > mentions that implementation can use intuitive names in the textual > representation, and that interface names can be used as > interface/link/subnet zone IDs by default. Good as well. Maybe something like an implementation MAY choose to display the names used in configuring the zones in the textual representation. I just don't want anyone to read the text and think this type of behavior is somehow precluded. > - write a separate informational document, which talks about the API > of the scoping issues, including possible representation of names, > and mapping of numerical identifiers and names. Yes, I think keeping the API discussion out of the standards track RFC makes sense. And I like having the informational RFC for the API issues as well. Roy Brabson -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
