On Sep 11, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 11/09/2010 08:13, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 11/09/10 12:34 AM, Alexandru Petrescualexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 14:12, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
When it is away from home it is fully a Host on the
.
From: Hesham Soliman [hes...@elevatemobile.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 16:03
To: Alexandru Petrescu
Cc: Wassim Haddad; IETF Discussion; mext
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Prefix
Delegation for NEMO) to Proposed
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I agree mainly with the document draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd.
It is good and needed to dynamically assign a Mobile Network Prefix to
the NEMO-enabled Mobile Router.
However, here are a couple of missing points.
One missing point is
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Moving to DNSSEC, regardless of the technical model does not eliminate
the need for certificates or CAs. The purpose of EV certificates is to
re-establish the principle of
Hi,
I also fully agree with Steve. I wrote similar thoughts in the survey.
Regards,
Wassim H.
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Simon
Perreault [simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 21:18
To:
Hi,
--On Thursday, 29 November, 2007 09:54 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought about this a bit when the RFC Editor started to
catch up and
accelerate; it's excellent news that it's no longer a
theoretical
question, so kudos to the Editor team (and IANA, who also
