Thomas, Will something like this work for you - we have replaced "change" with "clarification".
[The source of an ND message is no longer used for on-link determination, which is a clarification of bullet four of on-link definition in Terminology section of [RFC4861].] or [The source of an ND message is no longer used for on-link determination, which is a clarification of on-link definition in Terminology section of [RFC4861].] I agree with you, no implementations have actually interpreted this source address rule, but when folks like David notice the bug, folks quote the definition of on-link in Terminology section of RFC4861. That is why we thought of adding this line to our doc. Thanks. Hemant -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 5:12 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt > Sorry, I forgot one item that Wes just reminded me of. Earlier in the > day I had emailed out our new text for bullet 2 that has this new line: > "The source of an ND message is no longer used for on-link > determination, which is a change from [RFC4861]." I object, because I do not believe 4861 really says this (if you look across the document in totality) or was widely interpreted to say this. Until the recent notes from David Miles, I don't think anyone noticed the bug. Certainly, I have seen no evidence that implementations actually interpreted 4861 or its predecessors and actually did the wrong thing when receiving an NS. So, we can call certainly this a clarification, but I'd hesitate to call it a change. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
