>>>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:22:17 +0100,
>>>>> "Elwyn Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Yes - there are 9 instances in the body and 1 in the abstract and non-local
> would be right for all these places I believe.
Hmm, the changes are not small and could make the resulting text a bit
vague, but this time I tend to agree on the change.
This way we can (potentially) prepare for the new local address
without making an unstable reference, and the description won't be
false even if the new local address fails to be standardized.
Does anyone disagree with this change?
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
p.s. I reopened issue #267 for rfc2462bis at the issue tracker for the
record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
