In response to your last call, I'd like to comment on the following sections of the document:
Section 2.4 "Site is a Vague Concept"
This section does overstate the case. The last paragraph itself is sufficient cause for concern, regarding the concept as it was envisioned. There is nothing wrong with an administratively scoped boundary, and I would make that more clear. What must be clear is what happens when you have more than one such beastie.
Section 4
I agree with Alain. Any text that reads "MUST no longer be supported" is itself not supportable ;-) The IETF cannot dictate this sort of behavior, and making claims that we can is not helpful. I would simply state that the behavior is deprecated, and that new implementations needn't implement it. Whether they choose to do so is a matter for them.
Realistically speaking I would be concerned if my routing vendor released a new piece of software that caused my existing network to stop routing. Thus, the text, "However, router implementations SHOULD be configured to prevent routing of this prefix by default", is not quite right. I understand this was not the intent, given what is said about existing deployments, but a router doesn't know from existing versus new deployments. Rather, something like the following:
"New routing implementations should not support the functionality necessary to implement site-local scoping, and existing implementations should anticipate removing existing support at some point in the future."
Eliot ps: you may use any of my words without listing me as an author ;-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
