I would first like to be sure if it is okay to recycle the document as DS even with the lack of implementation on a part of the protocol description (in this case, the receiving side of the M flag), *process-wise*. If it's not okay, all the discussion we are having is meaningless; Regardless of whether we prefer the idea of deprecating the flag, or whether what Christian said is valid or not, we have no other choice than deprecating/removing the feature (though there may be some compromise on the details of "deprecate"). If it's okay, then we can continue the discussion.Ok, thanks for the clarification. IMHO, it is not OK to keep the document as DS with O&M given the general lack of implementation. - Alain.
On Apr 26, 2004, at 11:29 PM, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
- 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
- Re: [rfc2462bis] ... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: [rfc2462bis] ... Alain Durand
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether w... Brian Haberman
- Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc24... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-ipv6-r... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- RE: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O fl... Christian Huitema
- RE: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O fl... Soliman Hesham
- RE: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M... Bernie Volz
- Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need t... Alain Durand
- RE: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O fl... Bound, Jim
- RE: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O fl... Bound, Jim