Subject: RE: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

From: "Brian Zill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 03:14:50 -0700

> From: Robert Elz [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> 
> I also assume that the necessary two implementations of all 
> of this, that will allow a doc containing it to advance to DS 
> have been documented in the implementation report?

This draft is up for PS, not DS.

--Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 17:43:52 +0700

Date:        Thu, 3 Oct 2002 03:14:50 -0700
    From:        "Brian Zill" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | This draft is up for PS, not DS.

It is entirely possible I've gotten myself confused here, but Rob Austein's
message that started this thread said ...

	I made the mistake of allowing my arm to be twisted into reviewing
	draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt last week, and  [...]

so I just presumed that was the draft that was actually being discussed
(and that one really is up for DS, not PS).

It does seem to be the one that defines link-local, subnet-local,
admin-local (etc) multicast scopes (as they're represented in addresses
anyway).

What did I miss?

kre