I apologize if I've missed this particular point earlier in the discussion -
Experimental seems appropriate to me unless there is widespread deployment
of some version of the protocol that this document is specifying. And I
agree about correcting any inconsistencies prior to publication...
- Ralph
Erik Nordmark wrote:
I wonder whether Experimental wouldn't send a clearer signal
that there is some doubt about the viability of the solution.
That would be better than informational.
I agree. But I also think that if the document has
inconsistencies those should be corrected even before
publishin
> >> The counterexample is that there are ISPs that have their home users
> >> with 802.11 run public hotspots and get some compensation from the
> >> ISP. In this case, since it is a public access 802.11, SeND would be a
> >> good thing to use. And 802.11 is also a key scenario for proxynd.
> >
>
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
Author(s) : R. Hinden, B. Haberman
Filename
On 2005-01-25, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
>
> I think I should have responded during the LC period...sorry for my
> poor response. I've checked the latest version, and I basically have
> no objection to submitting this document.
Thanks, I was pretty sure you'd be happy since t
On Jan 24, 2005, at 6:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian H,
First, lets keep in mind that this is an Informational document.
I wonder whether Experimental wouldn't send a clearer signal
that there is some doubt about the viability of the solution.
I can see how this could be very useful in certain
Brian Haberman wrote:
I take it from your detailed responses below that you see it in IETF's
best interest to publish this document and protocol without any quality
improvements to neither the document nor the protocol. Did I understand
that correctly?
I never said that. I was commenting on the v
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> First, lets keep in mind that this is an Informational document.
I wonder whether Experimental wouldn't send a clearer signal
that there is some doubt about the viability of the solution.
That would be better than informational.
But I still think the document should say
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:19:56 -0500,
> Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This Last Call ended yesterday with no comments. At a minimum,
> I would like to hear from those people who commented previously
> whether or not this version satisfies their concerns.
I think I sho
Brian H,
> > First, lets keep in mind that this is an Informational document.
>
> I wonder whether Experimental wouldn't send a clearer signal
> that there is some doubt about the viability of the solution.
>
> I can see how this could be very useful in certain types of
> network environment, a
> First, lets keep in mind that this is an Informational document.
I wonder whether Experimental wouldn't send a clearer signal
that there is some doubt about the viability of the solution.
I can see how this could be very useful in certain types of
network environment, and publishing as Experiment
11 matches
Mail list logo
