Hi James. > However, I believe some of the resistance to deprecation may be the > result of people who have implementations and would rather not have > to pay the costs of ripping out that code and putting in something > new.
This I don't understand. AFAIK, there is little or no code to rip out. And if the code is there, but no site-locals are actually configured or assigned to nodes, any code related to site-locals doesn't get executed and is harmless. So I don't see what problem there is with deprecating them with regards to existing implementations. I don't imagine anyone is going to say we need to put wording in some spec that makes existing implementations that have code related to site-locals be declared non-conformant. That would be silly. Do folks think this above is a significant issue? Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
