From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 11:04 AM To: George, Wes E [NTK] Cc: Miya Kohno; Mark Smith; 6man Mailing List Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt>
the list of things which are orthogonal or out of scope is exceedingly large. perhaps we do not want to start enumerating it. [WES] Within reason, I agree. This isn’t meant to be a compendium of everything the document does not talk about, and I wasn't asking for it (nor was anyone else AFAIK). However, I don’t think it’s too much to identify this specific item as out of scope since the question was already asked. 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? [WES] Asking for some clarification in the document to address legitimate ways that this may break and answer questions posed by a reviewer is not unraveling it. My comments in Beijing referred to being opposed to expanding the scope of this document to handle other sizes of address blocks, mainly because I don’t believe that the argument to do that is nearly as compelling nor as easy to gain consensus on, and I want to choose my battles. No, I don’t want to see this delayed with a bunch of minutae and nits that don't ultimately improve the document, but the reason I highlighted a couple of things Mark said is that I’m not convinced that these are all minutiae and nits. Wes George
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
