Keith Moore wrote: > > There is absolutely no reason to restrict SL to disconnected sites. > > Tony, we've been discussing the reasons for weeks now. It's > pretty disingeneous to say 'absolutely no reason' in the face of this. > > Face it, SLs as originally conceived are broken. This is the > simplest fix. >
No, there has been a refusal to accept that the problems raised are bogus in all but the multi-party app case. This is the only reason the discussion has lasted this long. The fundemental issue here the architecture has been changed to support multiple simultanious scopes. Those that are having a hard time figuring out how to do that are opposed to SL, because that address range exposes the issue. This is a new environment where we will be able to develop apps that were not possible in the single-scope environment of IPv4. Rather than close that off because it is not easy to grasp, document the case of multi-party app issues and lets move on. Again, if the wording is changed to make a significant architectural change during the RFC editor process, expect an appeal. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
