In your previous mail you wrote: I think that at this point we should advance the document as it is.
=> this could be interpreted as an "in force" way to push the document... While I'm sympathetic to Keith's concerns, I think we have needed address selection *defaults* for a long time, and the default behaviour recommended for SLs is consistent and logical. => these problems are a direct consequence of the idea to put the whole stuff in the standard track. I was against this idea not because I disagree about some details but because of what has happened: a document reduced to the "MUSTs" had been a PS for years, and I don't want to imagine how the draft could reach the DS status... Defaults are made to be overridden, so the behaviour can always be adjusted. => to apply this argument you need a specification of an API (with a consensus), or (easier) just make a part of the document informational: Richard tries to get a near perfect document for a moving target, of course he failed. To make a PS which should be obsolete before to be published is not the proper solution. Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: last minute idea: s/informational/BCP/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
