RE: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independence

[Jim Bound]

Yep I am still with you on this one but if it ever happen we have to
permit a transition.

I think the argument was now.  why do this to the programmer cause we
could not pick a default.


/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])


On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Dave Thaler wrote:

> Jim Bound:
> > we did suggest that there be no default for v6only (in fact I
> suggested
> > it) and no one on either side wanted that.  thinking was even if one
> did
> > not get their choice then its better to have default for the users.
> 
> Actually I suggested it as well, so I wouldn't have a problem with no
> default.  Anyone who wants portable apps would just always set the
> option, no problem.
> 
> -Dave
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------