I agree that this is probably better as a BCP. Brian
Alain Durand wrote: > > On Thursday, June 27, 2002, at 09:41 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > > The Default Address Selection document has been out for months, has > > been reviewed several times by the WG, has undergone a WG last call and > > has been reviewed by the IESG. It doesn't seem right to delay this > > draft indefinitely waiting for another draft, especially when we haven't > > been told about any specific problems that this draft will cause. > > > > If there are specific, technical objections to this draft, please state > > them clearly on the mailing list. It would also be helpful to suggest > > specific text changes to the draft. This will give others and > > opportunity > > to agree or disagree about whether the issues should block the > > publication > > of this draft. > > Margaret, > > 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'm not sure about which is best at this point of the discussion. > Keith has arguments that I would like to understand better. > Too bad he couldn't publish a draft before the cut-off date... > > In particular, I would like to understand what would be the impact > on applications that are not SL aware the day the site admin decides > to turn on SL by publishing them in the internal view of the DNS... > > I'm not a SIP expert, so I may be wrong, but I'm worried about > what will happen to a SIP gateway when all the sudden it will receive > a request originating from Site Local scope for an external address? > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > b) or reverse rule 2 by default and require an API to enable application > to request SL when available. > > - Alain. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
