Hi Jinmei,
JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:52:45 +1000, Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I'd like to be sure that's what we're doing though, by explicitly stating that in the draft (or at least documenting behaviours in such a case).
Same here. Please refer to the next message of mine http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg03353.html and let's make a consensus.
I showed my own weak preference, but I'm quite open to other ideas.
I'm (currently) leaning toward (2)
2. M=1 => Solicit/Advertise/Request/Reply is available O=1 => Information-request/Reply is available
I'd prefer to see forward movement on this issue than to keep this point, though.
Perhaps after the troublemakers (like me) have been quizzed, a wider consensus can be gained.
As Ralph mentioned though, the idea of preventing configuration combinations may be less useful than defining how to behave in the case of flag reception. I suppose that comes back to the original aim of the draft authors neither to recommend or proscribe behaviours...
Sorry about all the cycling.
I think things are clearer in my own mind at least.
Greg
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
