Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 15:27:15 -0700
From: Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| If there is agreement with these changes I will submit a new draft (-09)
| that the area directors can proceed with.
Bob, I have no problems with either proposed change, I support both of them.
By all means, submit a new draft if you like - but please don't send it
back to the ADs until the other issue surrounding it has been dealt with.
Since this doc is going to DS (we hope) it requires an implementation
report. There is one of those already - can be found on the IETF web site,
but for anyone who wants a direct URL, it is:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/address-architecture.txt
That's great. It doesn't mention either of the new features, but I
would assume they can easily be added (since everyone does DAD, rather
than DIID anyway, reporting it as implemented will be easy, and I doubt
it will take much effort for a couple of implementation at least to test
longer SLAs in SL addresses).
Those need to be fixed, but should be easy.
But the implementation report also lacks any mention of testing, using,
or implementing the 'u' bit means "address has a globally unique IID"
feature, nor the "all unicast prefixes other than 0::/3 must be /64"
feature.
If there are no implementations of those, then the IESG is just going
to tell the WG to delete them before the doc does to DS, isn't it?
Why don't we just do that now? You could include those changes in the
next draft that you submit.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
