> I was trying to say; comment on known problem areas, but nothing more. > This is because we can't control their use, and even if we could, we > might be cutting of a valuable service down the road.
_inclusion_ of SL might be cutting off a valuable service down the road, and we have far more reason to believe that inclusion will cut off functionality than we have to believe that it will provide additional functionality. > When we know there is a problem, like the use of SL with the > current single scope DNS servers, we should point out the > reasons developers should think twice before going there. we know of *lots* of problems with SL. shouldn't we think twice about going there? > No. There are deployment models where SL is what the network manager > wants, only because they either misunderstand what SL will do or because they think they can't get globals. there's no reason whatsoever to prefer SL to non-routable globals. > but those who are complaining on this list are not working in > networks with those models. wrong - it's precisely because some of us have had to work in networks with similar models that we are so sensitive to SL brain-damage. > Before any discussion about removing them > can take place, the people that want to use them need a voice. how about people who write apps? do they need a voice also? Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
