On 12/21/2012 11:23 AM, Rafiee, Hosnieh wrote: > Fernando, As we have seemed to reach a stalemate in this discussion, > I see no need for continuing it. I tried to explain everything in my > last emails and I see no point in reiterating it here.
90% of your feedback was about how other RFCs could be tweaked/stretched to acommodate stable-privacy-addresses. And that included taking the CGAs RFC, and throwing 80%-90% of it, and include new stuff to make it do something that CGA addresses were not meant to do. IMO, that's not a sensible thing to do. (Not to mention the fact that IIRC there are IPRs on CGAs... s the further we stay from there, the better). > I offered you > a different approach which I feel would allow you to continue with an > RFC. you might want to investigate this. This I-D is a g item, which this wg adopted ~9 months ago. I'm not sure why you could argue that we should follow your proposed approach, instead of the one we got consensus on. Thanks, and Merry Christimas, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
