Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local

From: "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:56:21 +0100

> > If we can't enforce a "MUST" or "MUST NOT" then it shouldn't be in
  > > the spec in the first place.
  > 
  > Does not follow.  The IETF has no enforcement authority.

=> I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the IETF 
has an enforcement authority. I meant that this words
are used in cases where: if not followed, the protocol
will break. Therefore people generally follow them. 

Hesham
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:11:01 -0500

> will break. Therefore people generally follow them.

if SLs are used in an environment where applications communicate
across scope boundaries, reasonably-written applications (including
apps using standard protocols) will break.

therefore MUST/MUST NOT restrictions seem appropriate.

Keith