gosh people are being literal today :)
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2017-03-01. Exceptionally, comments may be> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting."Nothing in the past really matters here, what matters is: "Is the bis draft all set, did we fix all the things which must be fixed before this draft becomes a real 'standard'?"I don't think you can say nothing in the past matters here. We know that there have been host implementations that relied on this guarantee, and we have to consider that if we change the standard, those implementations will become non-compliant.
I don't think the proposed (now 160+ messages back) text really says: "FREE FOR ALL< NO LIMITS!!! WEEE!" it says: "Hey, if you want to use /64 because the application you are being placed into requires it (slac, blah and blah and ilnp and blah - see rfc7k) then do that, else any other prefix length works"
how's that not 'ok' for host folks? "Hi, my host is going to be in a slaac world.. so /64 it is!"