gosh people are being literal today :)
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Lorenzo Colitti
<lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Christopher Morrow <
morrowc(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2017-03-01. Exceptionally,
comments may
be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting."
Nothing in the past really matters here, what matters is: "Is the bis
draft all set, did we fix all the things which must be fixed before this
draft becomes a real 'standard'?"
I don't think you can say nothing in the past matters here. We know that
there have been host implementations that relied on this guarantee, and we
have to consider that if we change the standard, those implementations will
become non-compliant.
I don't think the proposed (now 160+ messages back) text really says: "FREE
FOR ALL< NO LIMITS!!! WEEE!" it says: "Hey, if you want to use /64 because
the application you are being placed into requires it (slac, blah and blah
and ilnp and blah - see rfc7k) then do that, else any other prefix length
works"
how's that not 'ok' for host folks? "Hi, my host is going to be in a slaac
world.. so /64 it is!"