>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:00:56 -0700 (PDT), >>>>> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> This is all just adding superfluous text to an already 90+ page document. >> Again what implementer or customer have you found that has noted a problem. >> Or we just masturbating RFC 2461 again out of boredom. We have so much work >> to do in the IETF here and elsewhere I don't get why this is a good use of >> our email time or WG time when nothing is broken. > Jinmei seemed to say that he was concerned that folks have or will > misinterpret the meaning of a non-advertising interface on a router. Yes, this is the concern I raised in the message that Jim cited (http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg02912.html) And note that this is separate from whether we should allow the "mixed" behavior in rfc2461bis as pointed out by Erik (and I agreed in a very recent message, which is perhaps not delivered to the list yet). > If this is indeed the case (and I trust Jinmei had a reason to bring it > up) I don't see any harm in clarifying this. See, for example, the following message (I referred to this one in my first response to this thread): http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg01524.html Apparently, there was a confusion about the relationship between "forwarding interfaces" defined in RFC2460 and "advertising interfaces" defined in RFC2461. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
