Pekka,
On 2009-01-22 08:35, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Christian Huitema wrote:
>>> What did you have in mind? Is there a reason to advance it?
>>
>> I am getting enquiries along the lines of "OK, this was a proposed
>> standard 5 years ago, it has not progressed, does it mean it is now
>> obsolete?"
>
> FWIW, I wouldn't mind advancing it if there is significant new evidence
> or experience to document at the same time. If not (perhaps you were
> referring to this), just updating on the standards track and keeping the
> document unchanged, doesn't seem to have that much point given we need
> to put energy to other work as well.
Well, I think Christian's point is valid. There are still text books that
list site-local as valid, and in my XP box I find:
DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 130.216.xx.xxx
130.216.xx.xxx
fec0:0:0:ffff::1%2
fec0:0:0:ffff::2%2
fec0:0:0:ffff::3%2
I think that simply reclassifying 3879 as DS would be a Good Thing
and requires minimal effort.
>
> Site-locals and ULAs is one area where I suspect our understanding of
> the situation has improved, and will continue to improve. Timing the
> update properly to gather that understanding is probably a good idea.
I don't believe there is enough deployment experience with ULAs yet.
I wouldn't personally want to couple the 3879 issue with re-opening
the ULA discussion.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
