On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 22:00:56 +0900
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I didn't remember the reason why the member name was removed, so I
> found it from the web. You'll get the answer from the discussion
> starting at the following URL:
>
> http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/lists/ipng/199908/msg00128.html
>
> According to the discussion, there seemed to be a clear consensus on
> the removal (though this may not be regarded as a "strong reason").
poster +
1 FAM preferred (removal next)
1 removal
1 its nice to have the array member
1 but I don't need the array member
I'm not sure what the overall membership of the interested parties was
but that doesn't sound like a large sample.
[...]
> Another thought: most user applications are expected to use
> inet6_rth_xxx functions, instead of directly getting access to the
> address part following the rthdr[0] structure. Thus, either 1 nor 2
> affects the typical user applications.
So why create incompatibilities with 2292 if you expect the feature
being broken to be used less in the future? Whats the gain?
[...]
> Having thought all of this, I still prefer the current 2292bis
> definition. (I personally could live with (2), but I prefer (1) over
> (2) because we had a clear consensus on this.)
>
> Can we agree on this, or do we need more discussion?
I'm not buying the reasons I've seen so far for this incompatibility
with 2292. I believe you need a reason other then "its ugly" to break
users code.
mph
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
