Ralph, I think there are two parts. This has affect to neighbor discovery protocol too. That is clearly the IPv6 WG. It also then affect to Addrconf and that is IPv6 WG. I just sent mail to IPv6 taking this as baby step to first ask a very basic assumption question. I want to see how that simple mail plays out. This has been going on too long and part of the problem is pure communications vectors not being done logically simply for discussion.
If others want the cross posting that is fine I just asked the question and would like to hear what people think that is all. thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 2:51 PM > To: Bound, Jim > Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Where do we do this work: purpose of m/o bit > > Jim - it would be great to sort this out in one group or the > other. But > I think the eventual solution will require input from both > ipv6 and dhc > WGs, so we might have to continue the cross-posting or set up a short- > lived mailing list just for this discussion. > > - Ralph > > On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 14:40 -0400, Bound, Jim wrote: > > Do we need to continue cross posting and we should decide > where we sort > > this out IPv6 or DHC. > > > > My suggestion is the bits need to be understood for ND and > Addrconf thus > > lets get this done in the IPv6 WG. That would make job of > what DHC has > > to do easy. > > > > /jim > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
