Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-default-addr-select-08.txt

From: "Richard Draves" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 22:03:15 -0700

> no, because the MAY (or may) clause incorrectly implies that host 
> implementors are in a good position to make such a decision.  
> they're not. 

I'm not saying the host implementor is in a good position. I'm saying
that if the app (or anybody else) hasn't made a decision, then the host
implemention needs to have *some* default behavior. That's what the spec
is about - default behavior. It's about making the best of bad
situations - what to do when you have to choose between an address of
the wrong scope and a deprecated address, etc, etc. In this case, the
host implementor is choosing to prioritize one kind of bug (privacy) vs
another (app-compat). The spec says we believe the host implementor
SHOULD prefer public addresses, reflecting our rough consensus that
app-compat is more important than privacy. But I want it to be clearly
stated that in some circumstances an implementor may decide that privacy
is more important than app-compat.

This language is a compromise to a controversial issue, so if we're all
unhappy with the outcome then it's good. :-)

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: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 01:11:12 -0400

> that if the app (or anybody else) hasn't made a decision, 

but you have no way of knowing whether the app has made that decision.   
neither does the host.  we have a clear consensus to not change the 
existing API behavior, which assumes stable addresses by default,
and this implies that an app can 'choose' a stable address merely
by not taking any special action.  this is as it should be. 

> In this case, the
> another (app-compat). 

host implementors have no business making such decisions.  or at least,
IETF shouldn't endorse such brain-damage if they do.

> But I want it to be clearly

yes I understand what you want.  and it's simply unacceptable.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 02:29:48 -0400

> unhappy with the outcome then it's good. :-)

sorry, that doesn't follow.  and it's not true.

why in the world do you keep insisting that IETF endorse an implementor's
decision to break applications?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------