>>>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:50:51 +0900,
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Yes - there are 9 instances in the body and 1 in the abstract and non-local
>> would be right for all these places I believe.
> Hmm, the changes are not small and could make the resulting text a bit
> vague, but this time I tend to agree on the change.
On the second thought, I suspect "non-local" is still confusing...even
though we are going to define the term as "an address which has a
larger scope than link-local," one might wonder if it includes
"unique local addresses" (when standardized) in the body of the
document.
I can think of two alternatives:
1. "non-link-local addresses". This is perhaps verbose, but the
meaning will be clearer. But one may still wonder if those include
the unspecified address, etc.
2. "large-scope addresses". On one hand, this is perhaps more vague
than "non-link-local". But on the other, it will clearly exclude
the unspecified address.
Are either or both alternatives better? Or can we simply use
"non-local"? Or are there any other options?
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
