>>>>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:11:11 -0700,
>>>>> Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Hmm, this message of yours seems to have been sent just after my
>> latest one...so, please let me confirm your intention. Can you or
>> can't you live with my revised proposal (attached below)?
> see proposal inline.
> Regarding the process issue, I personally share your view. But I
> understood the current practice of the IETF is much more generous than
> I'd want to see, and I'd accept that for now.
> I'm not sure how the chairs can substantiate this position, as it is
> in violation
> of RFC2026.
Again, I'm personally not sure either. But I think the "process"
discussion was over anyway, so I won't mention this point in the scope
of this discussion.
> I think the document should at minimum:
> - have text that analyze the security aspects of O&M
> - make it very clear that those bits only provide hints that
> there may be a DHCPv6 server and hosts MAY want to use it.
I read this to mean you can accept the decision of keeping the flags
if the text is reasonable for you. At the moment, I'm not sure if the
result will be acceptable for you (since opinions still seem to vary
on details), but I think we can at least move forward for now. Thanks
for your patience.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
