Keith, get off the soap box... IPv6 requires a new API, so there is no valid argument that we are not changing it. If you want to argue that we should minimize the changes, I would agree.
Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Moore > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 1:29 PM > To: Alberto Escudero-Pascual > Cc: Keith Moore; Bound, Jim; Erik Nordmark; Thomas Narten; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: IESG comments on > draft-ietf-ipngwg-default-addr-select-06.txt > > > > I have also the confidence that apps that require the use of PUBLIC > > fixed addresses, will do so if we give them a uniform API > to work with. > > we've had that API for 20+ years now. what we're arguing about is > whether to change it. I say "no". > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
