[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt

Keith Moore wrote:
> > To the implementors:
> > a) don't implement SL if you are designing a new product
> > b) don't rush removing SL support from your current products, this can
> >       be done in future releases.
> to application implementors:
> a) avoid using SL addresses in applications that exchange addresses
> b) don't special-case handling of SL addresses in other kinds of apps
> > To network administrators:
> > a) don't design new networks using SL
> > b) don't rush redesigning your existing network using SL
> >      however, don't expect them to work in the future as new
> > implementations will not support SL.
> c) don't expect future apps to work with SL
> to IETF and other standards organizations:
> a) don't utilize SL in any future standards

I certainly agree with all those do's and don'ts and have no problem
with adding them as informative text. But we are writing a normative
document here, to update existing normative documents, so is there really
a problem with using normative words?

Which software release counts as "new" is indeed not a question for
the IETF, and each implementer will have to make his/her own judgement
about exactly when to remove the feature. But I don't think it's wrong to
say that they MUST remove it.


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