Erik Nordmark wrote: ... > > What did you have in mind that might further clarify this issue? > > Remove "for the 2000::/3 Prefix" from the title and remove > the mention of the specific prefix from the text. > > Apart from the restriction to 2000::/3 I don't see how section 2.0 adds > anything beyond what is in addr-arch. Perhaps I'm missing something.
It doesn't add anything but it clarifies things that many people who are not on this list have misunderstood (or they have read in text books with obsolete content). I really think it is useful text. It should mention 2000::/3 in my opinion, because we are *redefining* the way we use 2000::/3. But it should indeed point out that architecturally, 2000::/3 is not special. Since it is somewhat redundant with addr-arch, I now agree that Informational is OK. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
