On Monday, February 3, 2003, at 07:02 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I understand that this issue is not as sexy as site local addresses,It's clear we won't converge rapidly on a specific choice, so I'd
Lets try to avoid a lengthily discussion on this. I think the w.g. has
more pressing issues. If others have strong feeling on this, I am happy to
change it. Or remove it.
suggest removing it so we can go quickly to a Last Call on this draft.
Actually, we could simply ask IANA to reserve a /32 prefix for documentation
purposes; it doesn't need an RFC.
but there are people writing doc at this very moment.
They need to know which prefix to use.
They don't care much if it is 2000:0000::/32, 2000:0001::/32, 2000:0002::/32
or anything else, what they care is that something is decided.
I sincerely hope the IETF is not going to wait it's apparently normal 2.5 year
process to solve that simple issue. Please decide and decide quickly.
- Alain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
