Re: IPv6 WG Call for Adoption:draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt

2004-11-04 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:23:52 +0300 (EEST), > Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> Title: Consideration M and O Flags of IPv6 Router >> Advertisement >> Author(s): S. Park, et al. >> Filename : draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt >> Pages: 1

Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-06.txt

2004-11-04 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
Okay, there seems to be some level of agreement on the fundamental point(s), so I'm now coming back to the original comments. I believe I've proposed resolutions to most of the comments in my previous message (in a separate thread). I'll answer the other points in this message. > On Wed, 6 O

Re: further clarifications on M/O flags in rfc2462bis

2004-11-04 Thread Margaret Wasserman
At 3:39 AM +0900 11/5/04, JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote: Thanks, but don't you actually mean this one? Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315]. (At least RFC3315 does not call itself "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 6"). You are c

Re: further clarifications on M/O flags in rfc2462bis

2004-11-04 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 07:14:24 -0500, > Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Thank you for making these changes. The changes you've made do a > very good job of reflecting my feedback. I believe that the document > is much clearer and more concise with the changes you have ma

ZigBee Conference: Call for Proposals

2004-11-04 Thread Gunther Palmer
Will wireless sensor networks be the next hot topic in the telecommunication industry? Analysts agree that the promise of wearable consumer goods, residential applications, and automotive network nodes is considerable. Enabling technologies must be developed further and standards must be ag

Re: further clarifications on M/O flags in rfc2462bis

2004-11-04 Thread Brian Haberman
On Nov 4, 2004, at 7:14, Margaret Wasserman wrote: HI Jinmei, Thank you for making these changes. The changes you've made do a very good job of reflecting my feedback. I believe that the document is much clearer and more concise with the changes you have made, and the document with the change

Re: further clarifications on M/O flags in rfc2462bis

2004-11-04 Thread Radhakrishnan Suryanarayanan
Hi Jinmei, I am in agreement with your proposed changes. Regards Radhakrishnan - Original Message - From: )> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 6:13 AM Subject: Re: further clarifications on M/O flags in rfc2462bis > Dear IPv6 folks, and esp

Re: further clarifications on M/O flags in rfc2462bis

2004-11-04 Thread Margaret Wasserman
HI Jinmei, Thank you for making these changes. The changes you've made do a very good job of reflecting my feedback. I believe that the document is much clearer and more concise with the changes you have made, and the document with the changes is acceptable to me. Do you agree that these cha