Subject: Re: summary of discussions about the semantics of sin6_scope_id

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 20:09:01 +0900

>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 03:07:38 +0900, 
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[email-masked]> said:

> Please note that the text below is not the conclusion, but just a
> memo.  I'd like to hear from others about the issues on this list
> based on the memo, discuss further if necessary, and try to get a
> consensus hopefully in a week or so.  Then the result will (probably)
> be in the next revision of the scope architecture draft.

Hmm, only a few people have stated preference on this issue.  I don't
think I've seen enough votes to make a decision, but we have to fix
this soon.  I'm still waiting for opinions for a while, so please
speak up if anyone of you is interested in this topic.

Thanks,

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 20:28:34 +0900

> speak up if anyone of you is interested in this topic.

I prefer 32bit scope, not 4+28.  I do not want to have two 
"scope-fields." in a single sockaddr{}.

--yoshfuji