I am unclear as to what the comment and/or request for change of language is. I will look at list archives from last year to determine what the discussion may have been but it would be useful to have some more context. I am aware of folks using ULAs (not something I personally favor). In past versions, as the current language was drafted, the authors were weighing heavily on appropriate language.
Pointers appreciated to any past thread. - merike > On Apr 18, 2017, at 12:35 AM, Erik Kline <[email protected]> wrote: > > Didn't we already have a bunch of discussion about this in v6ops and work > very carefully to come to text? > > On 18 April 2017 at 16:34, Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Relaying message to WGLC discussion alias > > > > G/ > > > > From: v6ops <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> on > behalf of Erik Kline <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Tuesday, 18 April 2017 at 09:30 > To: Gunter Van De Velde <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, 6man <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: [ALU] Re: [v6ops] Fwd: [OPSEC] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-v6 > > > > 2.1.2. Use of ULAs > > > > Still? Really? > > > > On 18 April 2017 at 16:18, Gunter Van De Velde <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Dear 6man, v6ops, > > > > Due to the IPv6 focus of "draft-ietf-opsec-v6" the OPSEC WGLC for this > document may be of interest to both 6man as v6ops. > > > > Please send your feedback to OPSEC email list, where discussion around this > document should take place. > > > > Kind Regards, > > G/ > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: Gunter Van De Velde <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Subject: [OPSEC] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-v6 > > Date: 12 April 2017 at 09:39:28 GMT+2 > > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > This is to open a two week WGLC for > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6>. > > If you have not read it, please do so now. You may send nits to the author, > but substantive discussion should go to the list. > > > > > I will close the call on 26 April 2017 > > > > > G/ > > Sent from iCloud > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec> > > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops> > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
