> We now have a combined local addressing requirements document > <draft-hain-templin-ipv6-limitedrange-00.txt>, a specific > alternative to > site-local addresses draft > <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-02.txt> > (accepted as a working group item at the Vienna IETF)
Why do we need both of these? We just need the hinden work. The templin/hain work could be INFO or BCP with some fixing? Is that the thought? > B) Deprecate Site-Local addresses at the same time as a alternative > solution is agreed to. This would mean advancing both > documents at the > same time and making them include normative references to > each other to > insure that they were published at the same time. This would > result in the > deprecation only happening if a consensus was reached on an > alternative. I will support this but we need to do it now and expediently. thanks /jim -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
