Re: draft-cmetz-v6ops-v4mapped-api-harmful-00.txt and draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-01.txt

[Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > => this is different: IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses on the wire have far
   > more opponents than IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses in the API.
   > For instance I am against the first and strongly in favor of the second,
   > i.e., I dislike SIIT and our local credo is "IPv6 is not a new protocol,
   > IPv6 is a new version of the Internet Protocol".
   
   instead, i think that i have far more arguments against usage of
   ipv4-mapped addresses on the api than on the wire (nowadays many unix oses
   have a very useful configuration option for dropping ipv6 packets with
   ipv4-mapped addresses).
   ...
   
=> we obviously disagree nearly as much as possible. So don't expect
to reach any consensus about the two mentioned drafts...

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

PS: I do *not* want to reopen the discussion about IPv4-mapped IPv6 draft.