On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 03:21 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:
Itojun writes (in response to Michael Hunter):
This looks like a strong draft. Several issues exist though.
1) There is no mention of RFC 3041 (privacy enhanced) addresses.
Both
the issue as to if they should be responded with and if
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Bob Hinden Margaret Wasserman wrote:
The chairs believe that this draft resolves the issues raised by the
IESG. Given the time that has elapsed, we thought it was important to have
another working group last call. Changes in this draft include:
- Move applicability
Date:Sat, 12 Jul 2003 06:08:01 +0300 (EEST)
From:Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| If you can't trust the guy whose NIQ's you're answering to enough that you
| need to obfuscate the association between RFC3041 and non-RFC3041
|
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Robert Elz wrote:
| If you can't trust the guy whose NIQ's you're answering to enough that you
| need to obfuscate the association between RFC3041 and non-RFC3041
| addresses, you shouldn't be answering those NIQ's at all.
Pekka, couldn't you say the exact same
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Michael Hunter wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:00:36 +0300 (EEST)
Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The other one is: if a NIQ is send to a RFC3041 address, do you reply to
it? My take is that by default, you should not and have a switch to
override.
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Michael Hunter wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:40:29 +0300 (EEST)
Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Michael Hunter wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:00:36 +0300 (EEST)
Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The other one is: if
On Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 07:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This looks like a strong draft. Several issues exist though.
1) There is no mention of RFC 3041 (privacy enhanced) addresses. Both
the issue as to if they should be responded with and if they should be
responded to needs to be
This looks like a strong draft. Several issues exist though.
1) There is no mention of RFC 3041 (privacy enhanced) addresses. Both
the issue as to if they should be responded with and if they should be
responded to needs to be addressed.
just FYI from implementation POV: KAME
This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the
following document as a Proposed Standard:
Title : IPv6 Node Information Queries
Author(s) : M. Crawford
Filename: draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-10.txt
Pages
