At Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:40:14 +0200, Lars Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the second last call has ended, but I didn't see a review from the v6 > community. (But maybe I missed it in the pile of unread email that > built up during my vacation.) > > Are the v6 folks OK with this document? If yes, I'd like to move this > forward after the gen-art review has been addressed. In case it's not too late, I'm fine with this document. I have some minor comments (on the 08 version): - it refers to draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-03, but this document has been published as RFC4943. - RFC4861 deprecates the "on-link by default" rule, so the situation is not as bad as described in Section 3.2, at least with newer implementations that follow the latest RFC. The main point of this draft still holds, so I think this is a minor issue. As a meta-level comment, I hope the workaround described in Section 4.1 will be more widely adopted and deployed. It's a pity that this document will be published as informational in this sense because it won't affect implementors who would rather be compliant to standards. This is probably a compromise after a political war, however, so I won't object to that conclusion. --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------