>>>>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:30:23 -0800,
>>>>> Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I don't think it is wise to ask the IESG to reconsider the address
> architecture (this is more than an editorial change to the RFC-editor). I
> also think the issues regarding the usage of site-local are more
> complicated that can be expressed in a paragraph.
> I don't think we will get a consensus on this one way or another. This is
> IMHO about people making different benefit vs. complexity tradeoffs. Like
> many other things in the IETF that there is disagreement on, I think it is
> better to document what it is and why it isn't a good idea and move on.
I agree. As I was afraid, we're now in the Nth time of the same loop
of discussion.
I would say, hoping this does not cause another flame, that the issues
of site-local are not crucial for the deployment of IPv6. (The
situation is different from the case for AAAA vs A6. At that time, we
had to pick up a particular one, or we could not go further). We
should terminate the discussion, which will not be more constructive,
by describing the issues and pitfalls clearly, and should concentrate
on other important issues such as the ones Margaret raised the other
day.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
