Brian,
Or, to get this ID moving, remove both suggestions, and leave this issue to be addressed somewhere else.
In my personal view, this would be the best course for now. Later on it would be good to get feedback on how people deploy ULAs in operational networks. For example, this might be a good activity for v6ops.
Actually, I would be surprised if there wasn't a lot of interest in tracking deployment and operational experience.
I guess. It's a shame this point didn't come up during Last Call. If we change something other than what the IESG asked us to change, we are on the edge of a process problem. I though that lower-case "suggested" was OK - it's much weaker than an official SHOULD, which would certainly be a mistake for the reasons Mark gave.
To clarify, I read Mark's text ("remove both suggestions") as "remove both of the suggestions he made in his email" and to not change the current text. Mark should verify this.
I agree with your points that changing this text at this point will require going back to the ADs to revisit the issue and I don't think the further delay is worth it.
Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
