Hi Mark,
Mark Smith wrote:
Hi Bob, Brian,
I recently read through
draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-03.txt
and
draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-04.txt
to catch up with what was happening on the topic of site locals / unique local addresses.
It was the first time I'd read draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-03.txt. I found it to be a good explanation of the issues that site local addresses, and more broadly, the issues overlapping address spaces cause.
One of the criticisms it points out was the disagreement about what the word "site" means.
I then re-read draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-04.txt. What
struck me about this draft is that it seems to quite often use
the word "site" in just as fuzzy way that
draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-03.txt criticises.
For example, I find that the use of the word "site" in the characteristics list part of the Introduction really starts to imply the limitation that these addresses can only be used for addressing geographical sites, as to me, the word "site" has a default geographical connotation.
I'd like to suggest the use of the more generic term "address domain" as an alternative to the use of "site" in draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-04.txt.
An alternative term could be substituted in this document. The draft will soon be going through IETF Last Call, so we could take the suggestion under consideration along with other comments received during the last call.
Regards, Brian
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
