ed (in addition to individual unicast flows) to send
> certain messages to all DNCP nodes connected therewith at once as well as to
> automatically discover new DNCP nodes. Endpoints are usually in one of the
> transport modes specified in Section 4.2.
>
> On 28.7.2015, at 18.45, Thomas
would not, also, work here?
Best,
Thomas
> On Jul 28, 2015, at 17:08, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> On Jul 28, 2015, at 9:09 AM, Thomas Clausen <mailto:i...@thomasclausen.org>> wrote:
>> 4/ I am not so sure that HOMENET (or the IETF) wins by staging a
>>
I was going to stay quiet on this issue, but what the heck…I’ve been following
this on the sidelines for long enough to think I have an opinion (without
having a stake in this).
My immediate impulse, from following all this from the peanut gallery, is that:
1/ It is required that H
[Apologies for the after-WGLC review]
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance
Ray, Mark, all,
On Sep 3, 2014, at 15:38, Ray Bellis wrote:
> This email commences a two week period for comments relating to the adoption
> of the following drafts by the HOMENET Working Group, as promised during our
> WG session in Toronto:
>
> draft-pfister-homenet-prefix-assignment
I h
