> no, because the MAY (or may) clause incorrectly implies that host > implementors are in a good position to make such a decision. > they're not.
I'm not saying the host implementor is in a good position. I'm saying that if the app (or anybody else) hasn't made a decision, then the host implemention needs to have *some* default behavior. That's what the spec is about - default behavior. It's about making the best of bad situations - what to do when you have to choose between an address of the wrong scope and a deprecated address, etc, etc. In this case, the host implementor is choosing to prioritize one kind of bug (privacy) vs another (app-compat). The spec says we believe the host implementor SHOULD prefer public addresses, reflecting our rough consensus that app-compat is more important than privacy. But I want it to be clearly stated that in some circumstances an implementor may decide that privacy is more important than app-compat. This language is a compromise to a controversial issue, so if we're all unhappy with the outcome then it's good. :-) Rich -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
