On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 11:27:19AM +0000, Tim Chown wrote: > Good point, section 6.2 would need massaging on the next update of this spec. > > I'll run a check against other documents.
I don't think RFC 3493 is a problem. I had a quick look, and all I can find is that if getnameinfo() is passed a compatible address, it's supposed to extract the IPv4 address and do a lookup on that. That it describes what should happen when passed a compatible address, doesn't prevent deprecating it I think. Don't think it needs to be updated. Stig > > Tim > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 06:10:17AM -0500, Brian Haberman wrote: > > [wg co-chair hat off] > > > > What about their use in the basic socket API (rfc 3493)? > > > > Brian > > > > Tim Chown wrote: > > > > >Hi, > > > > > >A discussion on v6ops made me realise that while I thought we were > > >deprecating IPv4 compatible addresses, this actually isn't the case. > > >I have a feeling many people have assumed their use is "deprecated" > > >but this isn't formally documented? > > > > > >IPv4 compatibles have now been removed from the latest update of the > > >Basic Transition Mechanisms document that is just going through v6ops: > > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt > > > > > >If we want to deprecate IPv4-compatible addressing, then we need to look > > >at section 2.5.5 of the addressing architecture document that was > > >re-released with site local updates last month: > > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt > > > > > >We should catch this one while the text is being updated for site locals. > > >We would presumably update the text in a similar way to the site local > > >text update to section 2.5.7. > > > > > >If a separate deprecation document is required as per site local > > >deprecation > > >I would be happy to author/help on that. For reference, the site local > > >deprecation is defined here: > > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-01.txt > > > > > >This deprecation would not affect mapped addresses. > > > > > >Tim > > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
