Subject: RE: My point about the ambiguity of the question

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 23:49:44 -0400

For unicast it makes it clear all we are supporting as a standards body
are globals and link-local TODAY, not forever.  That is an important
message and prudent act by the IETF.
Deprecating SLs reduces ambiguity clearly from the above premises.  
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Hain [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 2:33 PM
> To: 'Keith Moore'
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: My point about the ambiguity of the question
> 
> 
> Keith Moore wrote:
> > Ambiguity is one of the issues associated with site local,
> > not the only one. 
> > ...
> > > As the second note shows, part of the goal of some
> > > votes is to disallow a network manager the ability to limit
> > access or
> > > visibility to some of their nodes.
> > 
> > As the author of the second note, I can authoritatively say
> > that this is a misinterpretation. 
> 
> So please explain how I misinterpreted. Everything that is 
> not about ambiguity is about the simple ability to 
> consistently limit access or visibility, and identify when 
> that is being done. 
> 
> We don't need to deprecate SL to fix the ambiguity, so the 
> insistence that deprecating SL fixes other things only leads 
> to the conclusion that this is about limiting a network 
> manager's ability to define how his network is run. That is 
> not the IETF's call, so those votes are not valid.
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>