Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 03:48:00 +0700
From: Robert Elz <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
| | Except of course that it introduces back all the reasons for why it was
| | removed in first place and ignores that it shouldn't happen.
|
| I'm not sure which "it" you're meaning here (the second one, the first
| is obvious, but I doubt that the two are referring to the same thing).
| Is the second "it" the RA in response to a NS?
Note that I can't count, there were 3 "it"s in that sentence, I missed
the first one so in my sentence replace "first" with "second" and "second"
with "third" ... the (real) first "it" was also clear (my request/desire)
which was replacing the second "it" (kernel RA processing), but the third
remains less certain.
kre
