Margaret, > Margaret Wasserman wrote: > The current situation with the addressing architecture is that > we have established a consensus of the WG to make two changes > to the document (described in Bob's mail) and send it (back) > to the IESG for consideration as a draft standard. > I have not seen a level of response to this thread that would > lead me to question that consensus. Have you?
No. My opinion is that the draft should be sent back to the IESG, and I apologize if I have contributed in delaying that. Ship it, by all means. Back to the issue at hand, before you got us into that swamp, the topic was about draft-savola-ipv6-127-prefixlen-04.txt. IMHO, there are two ways to look at Pekka's draft: 1. It is irrelevant, as /127 prefixes are not supposed to exist anyway. 2. OTOH, the use of /127 is widely spread and I peer with two pTLAs using /127s myself. So the question indeed is do we want an RFC that remotely suggests that there are alternative ways to what [addrch] says, although it does provide some insight into legacy practices. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
