>>>> Yes. We will do so in the future version. >>> >>>Good, and I think it's important to do so. George and Lorenzo's >>> comments are >>>good starting points for that section. The potential >>> privacy/information >>>leakage aspect is also worth capturing, should those addresses be >>> seen >>>outside the organisation. >> >> Thanks, Tim. The purpose of this document is not recommend or propose >> a good architecture. It is to document something that is going to >> exist and analyze it. The pitfalls is very important for a neutral >> analysis >> >> Cheers, >> >> Sheng > >Sheng, > > Yes please do this. To me it now it reads more like "you can do this, >we recommend you to do it" when it should say "you can do this, it is >bad for this, it is good for this" and even you could include something >like "we do not recommend you do it but if you want to shoot you in the >foot you are free to do so."
I will do this for sure. It seems the current form giving people the expression that I am 'selling' this 'good' approach. I am not. I just want to call people's attention - this is some way some providers would use their addresses. We, as IETF, should document it and give analysis on it. I will make this much clearer in the future version. Best regards, Sheng >/as -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
