On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 15:23 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > We'd like feedback on this. In particular, which of the two options > proposed do people prefer?
For what my opinion is worth, the second option seems better to me: > OPTION 2: > > The existing syntax of IPv6address is retained, and a zone > identifier may be added optionally to any literal address. > This allows flexibility for unknown future uses. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer GPG fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017 Old fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
