Hi Michel,
At 10:08 PM 8/11/02 , Michel Py wrote:
>Here is what I propose so we don't bore this WG to death:
>
>In Atlanta, both kre and I get a 5-minute slot to present.
It is much better to bore the WG to death on the mailing list than it
is to do it in person :-)/2.
More seriously, there are three reasons why I don't think that this
is a good plan:
- The WG is here, on the mailing list. Only a small portion
of the WG will be represented at the meeting in Atlanta.
- There is no reason to wait until November for a resolution
on this issue.
>Then we ask the following question to the floor:
>
>"Let's imagine that the 'u' bit does not exist. Do we remove the parts
>that mandate an address to be /64, or don't we".
>
>If the floor says that we toss the /64 boundary, my vote goes to
>suppress the 'u' bit so this can happen. If the floor says that we keep
>the /64 boundary, then my vote goes to keep the 'u' bit for the time
>being, as it does not harm anybody.
There is no reason not to ask these questions here, on the mailing list.
The response we are looking for isn't a "vote", however...
The current situation with the addressing architecture is that we have
established a consensus of the WG to make two changes to the document
(described in Bob's mail) and send it (back) to the IESG for consideration
as a draft standard.
I have not seen a level of response to this thread that would lead me to
question that consensus. Have you?
Margaret
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
