In your previous mail you wrote:
Publishing this draft will have the effect to stop any further discussion
on who should be responsible to make the choice of SL vs GL
when both are available: is it a kernel function by default or
an well understood application choice.
=> I don't think so: the effect will that the document will become
obsolete at the first well argumented message about the SL vs GL
or any other open questions...
I'm concerned that the only API required by the draft is about
reversing the public vs temporary rule and that nothing is require
to enable applications to reverse the other rules.
=> this is in fact a bad idea because it makes the value of the draft
relied on a vague API idea, something not well suited for a standard
track document.
I will have much less concern if the draft was to be published as BCP,
as it is easy to change if proven wrong. I'm concerned it would be more
difficult to change in the Standard Track.
=> I've said the same thing for years.
IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS INFERNAL LOOP!
So I have 2 suggestions:
a) leave the text as it is but publish it as BCP. As there are things we
do not clearly
understand now, it would be easier to change later.
=> MUSTs, i.e., things which must be done this way because all other ways
don't work, can stay in a standard track document. All other things should
be moved to a BCP, and both published ASAP.
b) or reverse rule 2 by default and require an API to enable application
to request SL when available.
=> this is not enough because there are other arguable points. Worse,
I believe there will be new arguable points, as IPv6 is not fixed.
Thanks
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
