On 2022-09-19 17:56, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
I believe too that IPv6 fundamentally needs the capability to address LLA (address types) in applications.
Maybe proposed is not the best way. Is it possible to hear alternatives from everybody who said "No"?
> Eduard
I definitely agree with Edward here.
I remember that in an earlier round of discussions, Brian told me which
browser supported the syntax and how to use it (I seem to remember it
was for configuration of wireless boxes,...), and that made sense to me.
Looking at the current discussion, it seems that the 6MAN WG figured out
what would work best for them, without really listening to the people
working on the relevant applications (browsers). This should have been
much more of a collaborative effort, with both sides ready to compromise.
To me, the questions are essentially:
- To the 6MAN WG: Would you be ready to go for another syntax (choice 3
or 4 in Appendix A or variants thereof) if the browsers agreed to
implement it?
- To the browsers: Would you ready to implement this feature if it came
with a more compatible syntax?
Hope we can hear from both sides (multiple parties each) soon.
Regards, Martin.
-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2022 7:33 AM
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@xxxxxxxx>; Martin Thomson <mt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: art@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis.all@xxxxxxxx; ipv6@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-02
Roy,
On 17-Sep-22 08:48, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Sep 16, 2022, at 12:31 PM, Martin Thomson via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
