Brian, > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I didn't mean we should pull the current draft, which > is already in the RFC queue. Obviously, if we get > consensus on the principle, there is then follow up > to respect the process. I didn't think that my words > implied otherwise; I just want to take one step at a > time.
Well I found your post confusing to say the least. Besides, there is history. Less than 5 months ago you proposed to do it about the same site-local issue: > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 4:53 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Proposal for site-local clean-up > Unfortunately it's too late to catch the addressing > architecture document unless we recall it from the > RFC Editor and cycle it through the IESG again. But > I propose that we do exactly that Also, four days ago you indicated that you were hoping that the question of what would replace site-locals would not be raised before consensus was achieved: >> Tim Chown wrote: >> So, as Michel asked, what's the solution for >> intermittently connected sites in the absence of >> site locals? > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Well, I'd hoped to avoid that question until we had > mailing list consensus on deprecating SLs. One in the other, I had reasons to be concerned, don't you think? 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
