> wow. Having the document be approved by IESG is not a surprise, but > at the same time - the announcement is extremely misleading.
> Serious problems with the entire idea of address selection were repeatedly > raised in WG discussions. At the very least this should have been reflected > in the document announcement. I guess you might understand how this happened. The writeup that eventually goes out is written up before the IESG actually formally considers the document. At the time of the writing, there didn't seem to be issues. :-) Note that it was the IESG that raised some issues, and a side-effect of that was that there was quite a lot of mailing list discussion on the point you mention. So yes, the writeup is inaccurate and should have been updated before going out. I.e., if I were writing it now, it would say something like: Working Group Summary There was rough consenus in the WG for this document and no issues were raised during the original Last Call. During IESG review, several issues were raised, in particular the question of whether temporary addresses should be chosen over public ones by default. Subsequent WG discussion voiced general concerns about address selection and the possible problems for applications that could result when IPv6 nodes must chose among multiple addresses, whose long-term stability or global usability cannot be depended on. This concern may be documented in more detail in future documents. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
