> Suggested text to address both comments: > > replace: > "The special behavior of this prefix MUST no longer be supported in new > implementations." > > by > > "The special behavior of this prefix MUST no longer be supported."
Well, we did not intend to force every implementation developer to go fix the problem immediately, recall the products that have already shipped, etc. The "new implementation" piece is meant to convey that meaning. Just dropping it does not really solve the issue. > >Well, we still have link local scope, so there is still that. Do you > >suggest that we write a line for each of the RFC that currently mention > >site local and explain how to change them? > > > Precisely. There are not that many of them. If you go through the > archives, > you'll find a post where I made the list of places that either mentioned > FECO:: or site local. Or a simple grep in the RFC pages will do. I would rather use a catch-up phrase than an exhaustive list. Something like: "The special behavior of this prefix MUST no longer be supported in new implementations or in new protocol definitions. References to this prefix should be removed from IETF documents when these documents are revised." -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
