Re: IPv6 Address Architecture update question

Now that the thread has quieted down..

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Tim Chown wrote:
> I thought compatibles had (or were) being removed.  That's why all reference
> to them was removed from the new transition mechanisms RFC update?  See
> section 9 of draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-06.txt.   If we're doing a u-turn on
> that, we should catch it in this draft too.

Totally agree, of course.  Including them here just adds confusion 
because the readers think that is another addressing format they will 
have to remember.

> The docs at http://gsyc.escet.urjc.es/~eva/IPv6-web/ipv6.html and as
> draft-ietf-v6ops-application-transition-03.txt (not -02!) show good
> practice.   Has the application-transition draft been last called yet?
> Could we get it pushed and cited here in this RFC update?

Application-transition was approved about 3-4 months ago, and is very 
soon to become RFC, and could be cited here as an informative 
reference.

draft-ietf-v6ops-application-transition-03.txt also discusses briefly 
the tradeoffs that the app writer has to make regarding portability 
because the mapped addresses are not available on all the platforms.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------