Subject: RE: Requirements for Limited-Scope Unicast Addressing in IPv6

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:06:43 -0700

> bring RFC 3513 site-locals as a candidate scheme if you'd like,
> but it loses based on ambiguity and non-portability (to name
> just two) straight out of the barrel.

Loses to what? Since when requirements equates a solution?
Requirements are wishful thinking, no more. We don't throw away a
published standard with running code from multiple vendors in exchange
for the promise that _maybe_ someone will be able to produce a
replacement that meets the requirements.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:17:18 -0700

Loses to the proposal that best satisfies the requirements. If
you don't like the requirements, then suggest some of your
own.

Fred
[email-masked]

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-lsareqts-00.txt

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:32:26 -0700

Michel,

 > We don't throw away a

It is true that we should not make standards where there is no running 
code.  However, Running code != good practices or even good ideas.  And 
we do have running code (with both good and bad ideas) for now while we 
figure out this question- it's called IPv4.

Eliot

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:27:35 +0200

On måndag, jun 23, 2003, at 20:06 Europe/Stockholm, Michel Py wrote:

> We don't throw away a
> published standard with running code from multiple vendors

Running code equates to experience. If the IETF is forbidden to change 
anything that has running code we have large problems. For example, 
what shall we have all the DNS people spend their time on then? ;-)

 From http://www.cafax.se/~liman/quotations/ietf-31.html :

- - Is Paul [Vixie] here?
- - Yeah!
- - Stop changing the code!
- - It's my job ...
Thomas Brisco to Paul Vixie at DNSIND WG

Running code is what have given us the experience that ambiguity is bad.

- - kurtis -