> I respect the desire for temporary addresses (and AFAIK I was one of > the first people to raise concerns about embedding tracable information > in an IPv6 address) but I don't think it's a good idea to effectively > change the API in a way that would break apps at this late date.
The proposed text is trying to say that temporary addresses are preferable but that there might be issues (such as applications having problems) which consistitute a good enough reason to not follow the default. Thus there is significant freedom for implementors to use their best judgement based on their knowledge about the applications. Do you see a problem with this approach? Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
