At Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:10:19 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's focus on the problems at hand and solutions - forget delay of
> 2462bis I-D or what have you. Why are we referring to text in 2462bis as
> an admittance that accident cases can exist when we have a solution for
> such cases?
I'm afraid I'm now a little confused, so please let me be sure about
one thing first: are you still requiring us to incorporate your
proposed change in the coming 2462bis RFC? Or are you now starting a
discussion as a separate thread from the publication of 2462bis?
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
