Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address model (was: On WG progress and draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model)

[Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com>]

Ryuji wrote in another longer mail:
> We cannot retire the WG doc, but we can replace it if that is the WG
> consensus.

There are number of issues which have been discussed recently about each
document.

I know for my own point, but not sure how to re-make it.  If I make it
again and gets lost then it's a waste of time.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baccelli-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-03

1.  I think Charles had text proposal to me and onlist about replacing
"undetermined properties" and that proposal sounded better to me, except
that he assumed that an LL address is derived from link-layer
characteristics (the MAC adddress), and thus he discarded LLs; at which
point I disagreed saying that not discard LL, because LL can be like
fe80::1.  I think he got tired of me at that point so we
left it there.  LAter Charles repeatedly said he had nothing particular 
against LLs.  In retrospective I think it was a good direction, overall.

2.  Also - I strongly oppose "discouraging LL IPv4" which the current
baccelli draft says.  Just type ifconfig or ipconfig on your offtheshelf
machine with wireless interfaces and see the IPv4 LL in action.  I think 
that's support enough.

3.  I also oppose in draft-baccelli the exclusive use of /128 prefixes,
it makes no sense, I could explain further if listened, or noted in an
issue tracker.

For draft-bernardos addressing model I still have to read it fully, 
other than LLs.

Alex