Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ipngwg-site-prefixes

From: Richard Draves <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:03:29 -0800

> None of this should be mandatory.  In other words the user should have
> a choice to not use your draft and it should not be the default.  The
> default should be to use global addresses?

There is one thing that should be mandatory - if a name resolves to both
site-local and global addresses, and you are not implementing
draft-ietf-ipngwg-site-prefixes in its fullness, then you should discard the
site-local addresses.

Rich
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 22:59:01 -0500

>draft-ietf-ipngwg-site-prefixes in its fullness, then you should discard the

But there is no consensus that users should be putting site-locals in
DNS at this point and that is still a point of contention on the WG list
as I see it.

p.s. This is a real issue for products shipping in year-2000.  Do we
permit site-local in DNS?

/jim

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 06:33:39 -0500

> DNS at this point and that is still a point of contention on the WG list

Folks will put site-locals in the DNS. Saying they should not won't
stop them. What would be useful is some documentation discussing the
issues of doing so (like two-faced DNS so that the outside world
doesn't see such addresses), etc., and of course any specific
recommendations we think are in order.

Thomas

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:26:14 -0500

>recommendations we think are in order.

Agreed. 

/jim