It is interesting that Erik pointed out there was not enough information to make a decision due to lack of agreement about the requirements, yet that was ignored and the decision was made to press on and call a question that was not even on the agenda ...
>From the minutes, the characterizations I heard that the decision was based on fear of NAT appears to be correct as comments about it are liberally spread through the discussion. In particular they appear in the summary discussion right before the question. This subterfuge only furthers the lack of understanding about what site-local is. Local address space is a filtering function, and exists with or without header mangling. Filtering will exist in real network deployments, so having a space set aside for that purpose does not change the architectural reality. I agree that much of the group doesn't understand the requirements of the network managers, so I have started a draft on that subject. Granted this is an early pass, with content based primarily on previous email, but it does provide a basis for discussion. Comments requested: http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/site-local.txt Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 1:05 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Draft IPv6 Minutes from Atlanta IETF > > > Draft IPv6 working group minutes from the San Francisco IETF > are attached. > > Please review and send comments. > > Thanks, > Bob > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
