I honestly would like to understand if this discussion about fixing the wording (e.g. use a more abstract notion of interface / link), or if there are cases where things (may) break. I was hoping someone could point to examples?
As pointed out by Robert not all types of interfaces used today fit the definitions, even loopback doesn't match nicely /Eduard On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:14 PM Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> wrote: > Eduard Metz wrote on 07/10/2021 10:03: > > For my understanding, apart from that the (definition of) SID may not be > > aligned with the literal text in below RFCs, what is the real problem? > > the concept of an ipv6 destination address is deeply ingrained in the > ipv6 protocol. So, looking at this from a deployment point of view, why > does an expediency of the sort suggested in this draft justify changing > the semantics of one of the cornerstones of the ipv6 protocol? > > The authors would need to justify this protocol modification on the same > sort of basis that any other ID might be expected to do. E.g. for > starters, including an analysis of how this would impact or potentially > impact any other RFC which references or implicitly depends on > currently-defined ipv6 addressing semantics. > > Nick >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
