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

From: "Richard Draves" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 23:23:08 -0700

> The real question is whether this document should endorse the 
> idea that the 
> host can change existing APIs in such a way that it may alter 
> the behavior of programs written to those APIs.  The only 
> reasonable answer is "no".

And in fact, the document recommends (the SHOULD part) the "no" answer.
But I think there will be circumstances in which an implementor could
reasonably conclude to give priority to privacy over app-compat, and the
"escape clause" is really just pointing out the right to make an
informed decision that the implementor has anyway.

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 02:28:31 -0400

> informed decision that the implementor has anyway.

the implementor can do whatever it wants, whether or not it conforms to 
the standard.  but it's not IETF's job to endorse implementors' poor decisions.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 02:36:13 -0400

> informed decision that the implementor has anyway.

it's impossible for the host implementor is able to make an "informed decision"
about the needs of apps that aren't chosen by the host implementor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------