I think this goes to far. We have recently had a long discussion on the list regarding unicast site-local that concluded with keeping the definition of unicast site-local addresses in the document (see my email on 21 Jun 2002, titled "Consensus on Site-Local Discussion"). Part of that was that we would add text to the Node Requirements document that nodes are only required to implement the rules specified in the default address selection document (now a Proposed Standard) and that there be no requirement that a node must be able to be part of more than one zone.
Bob
I would go a step further. Since almost no one has implemented the routing/forwarding of scoped addresses (multicast & unicast site locals), I recommend:1. Move all discussion of multicast scopes out of the addr-arch and into the scoped addr-arch doc 2. Move all text on site-local unicasts out of the addr-arch doc and into the scoped addr-arch doc 3. Add explicit text to the scoped addr-arch doc to define how/when/where these scopes should be used This would allow the addr-arch doc to progress to DS without being hung up on text involving scoped addresses but still describing the pieces that we know work (e.g. global and link-local). It would also make a clean delineation between global and scoped addresses. The scoped addr-arch doc can then be the home for future work on scoped addresses. My reasoning is based on actually having implemented scoped routing and forwarding. It is not trivial or for the weak of heart.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
