Ok - that is true - this is a non-issue here at present. (B
(B (B[After some study of the email trails on ULA, I can't see there was resolution of the discussion of how to handle address selection when ULA and truly global addresses are available. This might argue for moving to non-local anyway.]
(B (BRegards,
(B
Elwyn
(B
> -----Original Message-----
(B
> From: Vladislav Yasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
(B
> Sent: 23 August 2004 19:58
(B
> To: JINMEI Tatuya / ????
(B
> Cc: Davies, Elwyn [HAL02:0S00:EXCH]; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
(B
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt
(B
>
(B
>
(B
> Jinmei
(B
>
(B
> Upon re-reading the ULA spec, I noticed that ULAs are actually
(B
> of 'global' scope, so original wording is OK. Since 2464bis
(B
> applies to global scope addresses, we are set.
(B
>
(B
> -vlad
(B
>
(B
> JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H(J wrote:
(B
> >>>>>>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:50:51 +0900,
(B
> >>>>>>JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
(B
> >
(B
> >
(B
> >>>Yes - there are 9 instances in the body and 1 in the
(B
> abstract and non-local
(B
> >>>would be right for all these places I believe.
(B
> >
(B
> >
(B
> >>Hmm, the changes are not small and could make the resulting
(B
> text a bit
(B
> >>vague, but this time I tend to agree on the change.
(B
> >
(B
> >
(B
> > On the second thought, I suspect "non-local" is still
(B
> confusing...even
(B
> > though we are going to define the term as "an address which has a
(B
> > larger scope than link-local," one might wonder if it includes
(B
> > "unique local addresses" (when standardized) in the body of the
(B
> > document.
(B
> >
(B
> > I can think of two alternatives:
(B
> >
(B
> > 1. "non-link-local addresses". This is perhaps verbose, but the
(B
> > meaning will be clearer. But one may still wonder if
(B
> those include
(B
> > the unspecified address, etc.
(B
> > 2. "large-scope addresses". On one hand, this is perhaps more vague
(B
> > than "non-link-local". But on the other, it will clearly exclude
(B
> > the unspecified address.
(B
> >
(B
> > Are either or both alternatives better? Or can we simply use
(B
> > "non-local"? Or are there any other options?
(B
> >
(B
> > JINMEI, Tatuya
(B
> > Communication Platform Lab.
(B
> > Corporate R&D Center,
(B
> Toshiba Corp.
(B
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(B
> >
(B
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
(B
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
(B
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(B
> > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
(B
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
(B
> >
(B
>
(B
> --
(B
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(B
> Vladislav Yasevich Linux and Open Source Lab
(B
> Hewlett Packard Tel: (603) 884-1079
(B
> Nashua, NH 03062 ZKO3-3/T07
(B
>
(B
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
