Brian, Bob,
>
> 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 with Bob. His previous post regarding a path forward was, I believe
the only path forward. There is no compromise position between the two
points of view here. Or at least there is no compromise to be had from the
individuals holding those points of view.
Tim Hartrick
Mentat Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
