Re: compatible address support [Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-security-02.txt

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 03:37:13PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> We had a similar discussion around site local and in the end decided that
> all the IETF should say is:
> 
>    Existing implementations and deployments MAY continue to use this
>    prefix.
> 
> In other words, it's not our business how implementors choose to
> roll back a deprecated feature.

Right.  My question was just whether covering compatibles was appropriate in
the 6to4 security review.

Tim