On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some informal text, helping the ICMPv6 implementers to understand the
IPsec processing issues, should be still OK.
I agree. The knob of whether unauthenticated ICMP packets
should be accepted or dropped also falls under IPsec module
while implementing.
>
> It all makes sense now :) Thanks for being patient :)
>
> What about we replace "This document obsoletes RFC 2463=20
> [RFC-2463]." text with "This document obsoletes RFC 2463=20
> [RFC-2463] and RFC 2780 [RFC-2780]" ?
Oops -
This document obsoletes RFC 2463 [RFC2463] and *updates*
RFC 27
Allison,
It all makes sense now :) Thanks for being patient :)
What about we replace "This document obsoletes RFC 2463
[RFC-2463]." text with "This document obsoletes RFC 2463
[RFC-2463] and RFC 2780 [RFC-2780]" ?
and Margaret adds a note to the RFC editor in her
writeup.
Both these action s
Mukesh,
Well, let me try again, we often have documents that update only part
of the earlier document.
In this case, we need people to know when the see RFC 2780
in the index that there is another RFC that modifies some of its
content. If this isn't done, they'll pick up RFC 2780 and be
misled
Pekka,
Comments inline..
> (Btw, maybe we could add "This document Updates RFC 2780." in the
> Introduction, satisfying Allison's that particular comment.)
Another thread going on about this. Please see my
mail and respond to my comments :)
> Now that there is a document which describes how t
Allison,
Thanks for the fast response. Please see my comments inline..
> > This specification obsoletes 2780's IANA instructions for ICMPv6.
> > The IANA is requested to use the guidelines provided in this
> > specfication for assigning ICMPv6 type and code values as soon
> > as this specificati
Hi all,
Several people requested an extension of the deadline for the submission of
the short abstracts for their presentations.
So we decided to extend the deadline until midnight of March 4th.
Please make sure to not miss it this time.
We only require a title for your presentation and 3-4 lin
Hi, Mukesh,
I've answered you inline, in turn.
>
> I am trying to address the following comment of yours for
> the ICMPv6 draft (draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-06.txt).
>
> Please see my comments inline..
>
> > The document includes a ref to RFC 2780 but never mentions it.
> > In the IANA conside
Hi,
(Btw, maybe we could add "This document Updates RFC 2780." in the
Introduction, satisfying Allison's that particular comment.)
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you mean that the new ICMP RFC requires a configuration
knob to be able to configure this behaviour (this is how
I re
Allison,
I am trying to address the following comment of yours for
the ICMPv6 draft (draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-06.txt).
Please see my comments inline..
> The document includes a ref to RFC 2780 but never mentions it.
> In the IANA considerations, it needs to state that it obsoletes
> 2780's IAN
Pekka,
Comments inline..
> Actually, 2401bis has not been approved yet; it is past the first
> round of IESG evaluation, but there are still substantial IESG issues
> to iron out. It'll take a while.
>
> But even beyond that, 2401bis would be first going to Proposed
> Standard (and maybe rec
11 matches
Mail list logo
