> >> Some people commented that we needed to clarify what's bad with the > >> M/O flags if we want to deprecate (or remove) them. The normal IETF practice is that when a document progresses from PS do DS and then to standard, parts of the specification that are not actually present in implementations get removed from the spec. As much as I can tell, we don't have much actual implementation of the M/O bits. If we follow the logic of the process, we should remove the corresponding sections from the spec. -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- 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
- 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/O fl... Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need t... Brian Haberman
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we ne... Alain Durand
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether w... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whet... Alain Durand
- Re: [rfc2462bis] ... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: [rfc2462bis] ... Brian Haberman
- Re: [rfc2462bis] ... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: [rfc2462bis] ... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: [rfc2462bis] ... Alain Durand