Those are very good to mention as well.
- Alain.
Keith Moore wrote:
To the implementors:
a) don't implement SL if you are designing a new product
b) don't rush removing SL support from your current products, this can
be done in future releases.
to application implementors:
a) avoid
> To the implementors:
> a) don't implement SL if you are designing a new product
> b) don't rush removing SL support from your current products, this can
> be done in future releases.
to application implementors:
a) avoid using SL addresses in applications that exchange addresses
b) don't
The whole story about deprecating Site Local has led to very complex
discussions
that a lot of people had difficulties to follow, partly because the
issues are complex
and partly because of the heat of the debate.
As we are coming near to a conclusion to this painful story, I believe
we owe
impl
> > It would actually be much simpler and less confusing to say only
> > "The special behavior of this prefix SHOULD no longer be supported"
> > and nothing about existing deployments.
>
> This doesn't work operationally, because people use site-locals today.
> And as we've debated endlessly we d
Alain Durand wrote:
I have a last comment on section 4 deprecation.
The document says:
"The special behavior of this prefix MUST no longer be supported in new
implementations"
and later on it says:
"Existing implementations and deployments MAY continue to use this prefix."
I find those 2 state
