Hi all, > > As I just said in a separate message, one big question had been raised > > about rfc2462bis. It was, in my understanding, > > => The question you raise affects 2461 and as a consequence it affects 2462. > FWIW, I really think that there is no point in going round and round again > in this discussion when there is no harm done by keeping them. > Removing them is not backward compatible for 2461 anyway. > So I recommend we leave them as defined. I agree with Hesham. Unless they are doing harm, I don't think they should be removed & create compatability problems. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether w... Alain Durand
- RE: [rfc2462bis] whet... S. Daniel Park
- Re: [rfc2462bis] ... Alain Durand
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whet... Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [rfc2462bis] ... Alain Durand
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we ne... Tim Chown
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether w... Alain Durand
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we ne... Christian Strauf (JOIN)
- RE: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O fl... Soliman Hesham
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- RE: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O fl... john . loughney
- RE: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O fl... Soliman Hesham
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M... Vijayabhaskar A K
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O fl... Tim Hartrick
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M... Alain Durand
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need t... Tim Hartrick
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we ne... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we ne... Iljitsch van Beijnum
- RE: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O fl... Soliman Hesham
- RE: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O fl... Soliman Hesham