Yeah. I have to agree with James and Brian: in retrospect, the M/O bits are
useless and further discussion at this point is even more useless.
- Ralph
On 11/29/06 4:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The MO bits were
defined long before we had DHCPv6 in place.
And they
; Thomas Narten
Cc: Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden; William Allen Simpson; General Area
Review Team; Erik Nordmark; ipv6@ietf.org; Soliman,Hesham
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Re: gen-art review of
draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt
Yeah. I have to agree with James and Brian: in retrospect, the M/O
bits
I only have one question left. Are anycast addresses taken from a
special pool? I didn't think so. Is it possible for me to first be
told about a prefix by router A, and then an anycast address that is
within that prefix by router B? Since anycast addresses have the
override flag set to 0,
Thanks, Brian. That's the sort of thing I was hoping to see. If the
principles ever have time I am still curious about the technical
questions in the review (which the SHOULD brouhaha buried).
swb
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
On 11/25/2006 12:01 PM, Hesham Soliman allegedly wrote:
Hi Scott,
Are you referring to comments other than the SHOULD issue? I responded to
all of your comments in my first email. If there is anything unclear please
let us know.
Hesham
OK. I'll take it offline for the moment. Thanks.
Hi Spencer,
It's not that specifications need to explain all possible
reasons for not
following a SHOULD - I agree with your statement that
successful protocols
are used in amazing ways - but I do think listing ONE
possible reason as
justification for a SHOULD instead of a
Bob Hinden wrote:
Gentlemen,
This document is being recycled at Draft standard. It has been
previously reviewed, IESG approved, RFC-Editor edited, and published
at Proposed and Draft Standard. It is very widely deployed. Any
issues regarding the meaning of SHOULD, MUST, etc. have been
