For unicast it makes it clear all we are supporting as a standards body
are globals and link-local TODAY, not forever. That is an important
message and prudent act by the IETF.
Deprecating SLs reduces ambiguity clearly from the above premises.
/jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf(_at_)tndh(_dot_)net]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 2:33 PM
To: 'Keith Moore'
Cc: narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com;
Erik(_dot_)Nordmark(_at_)Sun(_dot_)COM;
ipng(_at_)sunroof(_dot_)eng(_dot_)sun(_dot_)com; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: My point about the ambiguity of the question
Keith Moore wrote:
Ambiguity is one of the issues associated with site local,
not the only one.
...
As the second note shows, part of the goal of some
votes is to disallow a network manager the ability to limit
access or
visibility to some of their nodes.
As the author of the second note, I can authoritatively say
that this is a misinterpretation.
So please explain how I misinterpreted. Everything that is
not about ambiguity is about the simple ability to
consistently limit access or visibility, and identify when
that is being done.
We don't need to deprecate SL to fix the ambiguity, so the
insistence that deprecating SL fixes other things only leads
to the conclusion that this is about limiting a network
manager's ability to define how his network is run. That is
not the IETF's call, so those votes are not valid.
Tony
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to
majordomo(_at_)sunroof(_dot_)eng(_dot_)sun(_dot_)com
--------------------------------------------------------------------