Subject: RE: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... )

From: Chris Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:23:01 -0800

I would be happy to eliminate the section.  In which case this document has
already been last called in it's -02 form. I can resubmit w/o section 7, and
we can make it an RFC, with any luck.

Chris.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Przygienda [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:17 AM
To: Manral, Vishwas
Cc: 'Naiming Shen'; Chris Hopps; 'RJ Atkinson'; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... )

Manral, Vishwas wrote:

>Hi Naiming,
>
>I wouldn't like to start the site local discussion here, there is a very
>active discussion going on on the IPng list on this topic itself.
>
>However one of the advantages I remember reading on the list are for long
>lived TCP connections/renumbering etc.
>

After having monitored this IPv6 discussion for a while, I wanted to 
bring the horses back
a little. For a  good spec it is as important not to say things as it is 
to say them. Unless
we have a MUST or MUST NOT (or SHOULD for optionals), mostly there is no 
reason
to ruminate on things (with notable exception of security).

Chris added :

7.  Site-local Addressing

   No protocol modifications are made to support IPv6 site-local
   addressing.  If the operator does not restrict level 1 to level 2
   route redistribution of a site-local prefix then the scope of the
   prefix will be the IS-IS routing domain. Conversely, if the operator
   chooses to restrict level 1 to level 2 redistribution of the site-
   local prefix then the scope of site-local prefix will be the
   originating level 1 area.

Well, ultimately this is not adding any value to this draft, we're 
saying we're not saying
anything or rather saying things about stuff that is not our business.
We are not in business to tell people how they can hang themselves or how
they have to configure the protocol to make their deployments work. We 
are in the
business of specifying bits of wires that will make implementations 
interoperate.

I concurr with Naiming and my last comment would be to nuke this section 
unless IPv6
people come up with things they want as normative MUSTs (which means 
they have
a thorough understanding of what they want) or just leave this nonsense
section as it is and get the document into 'another' last call.  

    thanks
 
    -- tony

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg