--On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 16:41:16 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd be happy to dust off my sl-impact draft, and update it based
> on the feedback I've received so far, if folks think that would be
> useful...
Yes, please do.
--
Måns NilssonSystems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>
>> > True, but if we wish to remain relevant, something has to be written
>> > somewhere. I fully agree that doing so in *this* document may not
>> be
>> > worth it; it might be worth it in some other doc, e.g. sl-impact.
>>
>> I agree with Pekka.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 04:41:16PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> I'd be happy to dust off my sl-impact draft, and update it based
> on the feedback I've received so far, if folks think that would be
> useful...
Please. It's excellent to have the issues in one place (other than
embdedded
I definitely think so. I think it's better if the deprecation document,
which is a standards action, stays mean and lean so that it can be read
in 5 minutes, with the full details of the issues being Informational.
Brian
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> At 08:57 AM 9/23/2003 +0200, Kurt Erik Lin
At 08:57 AM 9/23/2003 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> True, but if we wish to remain relevant, something has to be written
> somewhere. I fully agree that doing so in *this* document may not be
> worth it; it might be worth it in some other doc, e.g. sl-impact.
I agree with Pekka. HAving this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>>> 2 Adverse effects of site local addresses
>>>
>>> ==> I showed this draft to a believer of site-local addressing, who
>>> had had
>>> very little experience with IPv6. He was not convinced of the
>>> arguments.
>>> This may be for one of t
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > 2 Adverse effects of site local addresses
> >
> > ==> I showed this draft to a believer of site-local addressing, who had had
> > very little experience with IPv6. He was not convinced of the arguments.
> > This may be for one of the many re
Pekka,
Thanks for the review.
Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A couple of comments on deprecate-site-local draft. In general, I think
> the doc is very good, but could use a bit boosting in a couple of areas
> (which -00 draft wouldn't.. :-)
>
> substantial
> ---
>
> Although the con
Hi,
A couple of comments on deprecate-site-local draft. In general, I think
the doc is very good, but could use a bit boosting in a couple of areas
(which -00 draft wouldn't.. :-)
substantial
---
Although the consensus was far
from unanimous, the working group decided in its meeti
