> Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm afraid the text you proposed will > simply make the specification unnecessarily ambiguous. Yes, you're probably right, it should be a little less ambiguous.
> I'd like to repeat my points, which are: > > 1. I personally do not think it makes sense to update the lifetimes of > statefully configured address by RAs. > 2. as a separate issue, I think it's beyond the scope of rfc2462bis to > describe specific details on this. I fully agree with 2.). > 1. the original proposed text of mine > 2. the new proposed text of mine > 3. the text you proposed I can live with 1.) for the moment because I agree that it's not within the scope of rfc2462bis to elaborate on this issue. (It might be worth to discuss the "invalidating statefully configured addresses" issue outside of the "updating rfc2462bis" discussion to gather some views on this.) I think we can agree on 1.). Christian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
