On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 16:02:22 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are halfway through the process of deprecating > SL and designing a replacement. That's by definition a WG activity. We have > a draft set of goals on the table - one draft set of goals - and until > someobody produces an alternative set of goals, those goals are the ones > I'm looking at. I guess that's the core of the disagreement. I don't see our task as that of replacing SL - certainly not in terms of coming up with "a" replacement. I recognize that SL was designed to fill certain needs - or probably closer to the truth is that lots of folks were projecting needs onto SL. Where there are legitimate needs, we need to try to address them. It's also clear that PA addressing alone cannot meet some legitimate needs. What's not clear is that there is a legitimate need for "local" addressing - and stating things in that way seems to presume a particular kind of solution that we already know to be problematic. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
