Oops, sorry, just looked at the ID again, noticed that it states they are unique. Along those lines "Unique Organizational IPv6 Unicast Addresses" would be an acceptable title.
Hmm, at least for me, I would take the word "unique" to guarantee no duplication. With local generation, this isn't a guarantee as the uniqueness can't be validated. Maybe the term "near-unique" could be used throughout the text when describing the local generation case, to better describe what the user is getting a.k.a. truth in advertising. Maybe just "Organizational IPv6 Unicast Addressesing" would be a better name, split into unique and near-unique types of organizational addressing within the document. Thanks, Mark. On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:57:18 +1030 Mark Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:25:14 -0800 > Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'd be inclined to go with this one, as it avoids implying a guarantee of > uniqueness, which would then imply they could be used as PI addresses from day one. > > > Organizational IPv6 Unicast Addresses > > Regards, > Mark. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
