> Hi All, > > The Default Address Selection draft is currently with IESG, waiting > for approval for PS. There was clear consensus in the WG to send this > document to the IESG, we held a WG last call, and it has since been > updated based on IESG feedback. > > I have followed this discussion, and it is clear that one or two people > object to the changes made based on IESG review. However, I don't see > any WG consensus that there are problems with this document that should > block its publication as a PS. > > Thoughts? > > Margaret
I want to reread the current version of the document in its entirety (haven't had time to do that yet) before stating a specific opinion on this document. I continue to have strong reservations about the use of limited-scope addresses; and about the expectation that hosts and applications can make reasonable choices from a set of addresses where some of those addresses will not work efficiently, reliably or at all. Given that such choices are forced on applications and hosts, I also have reservations about a "one size fits all" set of rules for address selection, since it seems to me that different applications have different needs which conflict (e.g. some need address stability more than address portability, some vice versa) Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
