Margaret,
>> john loughney wrote:
>> What is the amount of work to depreciate site locals - how
>> many RFCs need to be updated? I'm not convinced that
>> deprecating site locals really solves anything.
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> The work to keep, and finish, site-locals is much greater
> than the work to deprecate them.
What about a comparison between:
- The work to keep, and finish, site-locals
and
- The work to deprecate _and_ replace them.
There is no deprecation without a replacement, and given the nature of
the beast it is permitted to think that consensus on a replacement might
be not achievable, leading that they would indeed not been deprecated
lacking of a valid replacement and we would be back where we are right
now.
IMHO, the compromise approach such as the exclusive model Bob and you
came up with has more chances of success and a good starting point. If
the WG can't agree on such a thing I doubt it could agree on a solution
started from scratch.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
