Re: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

...
> It is not clear to me why the arguments for a fixed boundary have been 
> removed.  I accept that there is no IETF architectural issue whether the 
> size is /48, /56 or whatever,

Having had a lot to do with the text of 3177, I have been reluctantly
forced to the conclusion that those arguments have been overtaken by
events. I think the drafts explains why, too. And the draft doesn't
need to explain why its arguments are somewhat vague instead of being
firm recommmendations - it really isn't in the IETF's scope to
make such recommendations, now that the IPv6 unicast space is being
administered by the RIRs.

I'm personally sorry to see /48 not applied universally but that bus
has left.

     Brian