I tend to agree with the previsous comment that people will take this example as law and will make it a defacto standard boarder even if we only intened to make it a sample based on one groups implementation. I would suggest that it read somthing to the effect of:
An example of the resulting format of global unicast address based on the IANA implementation... Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Brian Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Bob Hinden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Margaret Wasserman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:43 AM Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-02.txt > > Pekka Savola wrote: > > My perception is that the /48 "border" is inside the IANA > > delegation. > > It is, but read the text again: > > | An example of the resulting format of global unicast address > ^^^^^^^ > > This example is what the Best Current Practice is today. "Current" means > what it means: it might change later, but as of today it's the deal. I > still think this should be published as BCP. Several people have > contributed that we needed to send a "strong message". > > Michel. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
