Hi, >>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:27:02 +1100, >>>>> Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It has been a bit confusing with crossing e-mails and > timezone differences. Sorry, I actually noticed the possible confusion when I was writing the messages, but I simply let it go.. > I think that there's agreement for clarification. Yes, I think so. > I think that people agree what needs to be clarified. Ditto. > I'm not sure if it's decided where to put the clarification > (but I don't care myself, so long as everyone else agrees) Actually, I'm not sure, either. > I'm not sure if there is a text which is agreed. > (I've heard more harmonious responses in later text, but > there were two or three fairly related pieces of text going round). Again, I'm not sure, either. But I agreed on the Christian's second proposal **if we agree on the need for revising Section 6.2.6**. I don't have a strong preference on how to fix the issue, but if I were to ask, I'd - at least add a general note about what the node should do when it receives an unsolicited ND message (NS, RS, RA, Redirect) without LLAO and does not have a corresponding neighbor cache. I don't care about the place, but I'd probably use Section 7.3.3, and - updated APPENDIX C (state machine) accordingly, and - (optionally) describe a bit more details of each case (e.g., add clarification 6.2.6 for the RS case) Hope this helps, JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------