At 08:04 PM 15/11/2005, Pekka Nikander wrote:
Christian,
=> the draft is supposed to address both issues. For the first one
we can add more cautionary words if one believes there are not yet
enough. For the second one we already merged two very different
experiments into one request.
Well, if that is what we want, then we can write a much simpler draft,
"reserving a prefix for non routable identifiers". It will have
essentially one or two paragraph of text, plus the usual ten pages of
boiler text.
Its a simple draft, but it still makes absolutely no sense to me to me in
terms of relating to to an address allocation. If these token values are in
fact "non routable identifiers" , which is what I read above, then you have
no semantic intersection with the conventional address space and you can
set up a "non-routeable identifier" register and allocate unique identifier
tokens according to any distribution criteria that makes sense according to
the intended use.
Geoff
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
