Margaret Wasserman wrote: > Hi Tony, > > >Unnecessary, dubious, & marginal are one perspective. The > point is that > >the recommendation to preclude simultanious use of SL & global is a > >serious architectural change. It is not a minor edit. > > I'm not sure where the concern is coming from that we will > make a major change to the addressing architecture during the > RFC editing phase. Neither Bob nor I have proposed or > advocated that course of action.
Brian's original proposal: ... unless we recall it from the RFC Editor and cycle it through the IESG again. But I propose that we do exactly that ... Your response: ... I would support this change. ... Randy's response: ... if there is real consensus on this, processwise it could be done with a note to the rfc editor or in the 48 hour edit call as s/he is doing the final edits. ... IMHO, that looks like a subversion of the wg process for something that is in effect a major architectural change. > > You and I may disagree on whether or not this change is > warranted, and we may disagree about whether it is a major > architectural change or just a usage restriction, but we do > agree on one thing... > > This _would_ be a substantive change to the addressing architecture. Yes. The reason I claim it is architectural is it proscribes against simultaneous support for multiple scopes. > > So, I would _not_ support making this change without rough WG > consensus and proper WG and IESG review, and I'm sure that > Bob wouldn't either. > > I hope that this addresses your concern in that area. I am satisfied, and cautiously optimistic. Tony > > Margaret > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
