> On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:08:24 -0400,
> "Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Your wording works for me well. Good suggestion too.
Thanks, glad to hear that. But please let me check one thing: do you
have any preference between the solutions? That is,
>> 1. remove "stateful" from
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
21.95% | 18 | 23.17% |96314 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10.98% |9 | 12.53% |52087 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
8.54% |7 | 7.47% |31069 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
8.54% |7 | 7.34% |305
Hi Tim,
> This reminds me, I don't think the IPv6 nodes requirements draft has yet
> gone final, since draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08 still exists on the
> IETF I-D area.
Just updated it to clear current DISCUSSes.
> Should we not update this before it goes final with the wording that has
Hi all,
I have just sent the draft in. The updates cover the IESG DISCUSSes.
Issue tracker has been updated:
http://danforsberg.info:8080/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements/issue?:columns=title,category,id,creation,creator,priority,status,assignedto&:sort=priority&:group=document&:pagesize=50&:s
Bob and Brian,
I am fine with this and it is good spec. One question in my mind is do
we want to use up precious RSVD bits in the RA message or make this an
option? It would also work as option as I see it and save using up the
RA RSVD header bits.
thanks
/jim
> -Original Message-
> F
This reminds me, I don't think the IPv6 nodes requirements draft has yet
gone final, since draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08 still exists on the
IETF I-D area.
Should we not update this before it goes final with the wording that has
been agreed for the M and O flags, and also to clarify the ass
