Thomas Narten wrote:
>
> > I agree with Michel. Although Thomas is logically correct,
> > I think that including section 2.0 and putting this on
> > standards track is a necessary signal to ensure that TLAs
> > are really understood to be dead.
>
> Let me ask a pragmatic question. If this document goes on standards
> track, how will this document advance up the Standards Track? What
> will the implementation reports contain and actually test? I don't see
> immediately anything that is testable. This is one of the reasons I
> don't see Standards Track is being the right classification.
Good point (but doesn't it also apply to the address architecture
to a large extent?). BCP is our usual way out of that. I stick
to me feeling that we need a stronger signal than Informational,
but I wouldn't go to the wall over it.
>
> > I also think the explicit reference to 2000::/3 is useful.
> > It's the only space currently being allocated.
>
> I'm not sure what this means. If we want to say only 2000::/3 is
> currently allocated, that might be fine. But the current document
> doesn't say that (indeed, it says nothing about what has and has not
> been allocated). Instead, it talks about formats. And why aren't the
> words in addr-arch good enough about the 2000::/3 allocation?
They are OK. If we were just writing mathematical theorems, they
would be sufficient; as I said you are logically correct. I just
think we need to make the point in a short stand-alone document,
even if there is some redundancy.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
