On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:41:02 -0800 Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 was thinking, because of the conflicts, delete both the text suggesting that subnet numbers would be shared between ULA and global prefixes, and the suggestion for separate ULA /48 prefixes per IGP domain or area. I'd think making no recommendation would be better than making ones that may need to be clarified or contradicted at a later date. Regards, Mark. -- "This signature intentionally left blank." -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------