Michael, > Second, by your own account we do need to prepare documents about what > to do next. Call it deprecation if you want what I call it is that we > have more work to do on site-locals and on the scoped architecture. > > > > and it isn't clear how we can ever finalize the scoped > > addressing architecture without some type of decision > > on this issue. Perhaps we can break out the > > non-contentious parts and advance those parts? > > I believe we can progress on three topics: > - Ambiguity > - Convexity / defining the site borders. > - Tuning the compromise.
I support this as a way forward. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
