Brian E Carpenter wrote:


Perhaps that is because there is only one class of solution that
meets these important goals. If you have an alternative statement
of goals that leads to a different class of solution, please
publish your own draft.


Let me put it this way: I am not sure there is a problem here to solve. I expected
to read a draft explaining what the problem is we are trying to solve with "scoped"
addresses. The draft (imo) lumps together several problems most of which can be
solved by other means in an effort to justify limited range addresses. So, no I
don't intend to write a scoped-stuff-draft of my own. Patrik posed a few direct
questions to this effect on the list - none of which have been answered.


Given your reply to my question
I oppose the publication of this draft as a wg document.



I think you too have missed the point. Accepting this as a WG draft is not the same thing as agreeing to publish it as an RFC. It is merely using it as the starting point. (It is true that unless the people who disagree send their own alternative text, the draft won't change...)

If the diff -u is too large there is limited value in providing alternative text. I
agree with Pekka in disagreeing with the basic assumptions of the draft.



That isn't the point here. 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.




The "and designing a replacement"-part worries me. You assume that there is consensus
to only deprecate SL if a replacement can be found. I am quite sure you are wrong in
that assumption.


Cheers Leif

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to