>> >> Link local is orthogonal in this topic. This document does not address >> it. > > [WES] Then my recommendation would be to explicitly state this in the > document. Perhaps something specifying that this document only discusses use > of /127 for global scope IPv6 space, and link-local /127 links is out of > scope for the document.
the list of things which are orthogonal or out of scope is exceedingly large. perhaps we do not want to start enumerating it. >> >> Static IPv6 neighbor has been used occasionally. There are quite a few >> sources which describe it, so please refer to them. > > [WES] No, you should have informative references to them in the document > rather than leaving the reader to infer/find them. And specifically for D > and E, you need to provide some guidance to implementers on what should be > done in these cases. ibid can we focus on the doughnut, not the hole? you wanted to push this through now, as opposed to cleaning up details such as full CIDR. if we are to be drawn into the whirlpool, the I would like to put that in, depricate subnet nevercast, ... are you sure you really want to unravel this? Randy, fighting with the ipad's MUA
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
