Are RFC 2893 Para. 5.2 and 5.3 going to be updated accordingly? Otherwise, I have no objection.
RFC2893 is going to be obsoleted any day now, by draft-ietf-mech-v2-xx, so this is not an issue.
While I would have liked to remove the mention of compatible addresses completely, deprecation as proposed by Bob is good enough for me.
Some might argue (and argued in the past) that there should be some health warnings about the use of mapped addresses (e.g., a reference to now-published RFC4038), but IMHO that kind of text may be ill fit to the address architecture and is opening a can-of-worms that we _don't_ want to touch here. But I could live with adding a reference if required.
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
