On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:27:59 +0200 (EET)
Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Maybe a "SHOULD NOT" rather than "are not recommended to" in the first
> > sentence ? "not recommended" reads to me that, well, it isn't
> > recommended,
> [...]
> > "At th
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Mark Smith wrote:
Maybe a "SHOULD NOT" rather than "are not recommended to" in the first
sentence ? "not recommended" reads to me that, well, it isn't
recommended,
[...]
"At the present time and PTR records for locally assigned local
IPv6 addresses SHOULD NOT be installed
Hi Bernie,
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 23:39:48 -0500
"Bernie Volz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't the reason more basic ... As these are not globally administered,
> there are no plans to build out the zones to contain the reverse delegations
> (since there's no one to officially designate the zones
smime.p7m
Description: S/MIME encrypted message
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
Isn't the reason more basic ... As these are not globally administered,
there are no plans to build out the zones to contain the reverse delegations
(since there's no one to officially designate the zones to).
- Bernie
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
Hi Bob,
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:08:55 -0800
Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on the comments on the mailing list and yesterday's discussion at the
> IPv6 session in Minneapolis an updated version of the ULA DNS text is
> included below.
>
> Please review and respond if it looks OK
To make the WG aware, I did chat with our AD on the issue of
referencing the PS level 2401bis document. Given the request
to clarify the IPsec text within the spec from the IESG, it should
not be an issue for this spec to normatively reference 2401bis.
Regards,
Brian
On Mar 9, 2005, at 17:29, [EMA
Based on the comments on the mailing list and yesterday's discussion at the
IPv6 session in Minneapolis an updated version of the ULA DNS text is
included below.
Please review and respond if it looks OK (or not). The current plan is to
have the text replace the content of Section 4.4 "DNS Issu
Hi All,
In order to address IESG comments, I am trying to make the following
changes in the Security Consideration section and the references of
the ICMPv6 draft.
- Refer to ESPbis, AHbis instead of ESP and AH (as commented by Allison)
- Add normative reference to 2401bis. (section 6 of 2401bis
Hi All,
As discussed in the IPv6 WG meeting yesterday, I am planning to
replace sub-sections (b), (c) and (d) of section 2.2 in the
draft with the following text:
===
(b) If the message is a response to a message sent to any other
address, such as
-
Tim,
At 04:03 PM 03/08/2005, Tim Chown wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 04:29:22PM +0100, Mohsen Souissi wrote:
> ==> Maybe it should be stated clearly whether we may or may not keep
> using "site-local" terminology in the multicast context while that
> terminology has been deprecated in the unicas
All,
The presentations from Tuesday's session are now available at
http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/IETF62/IPv6/
Regards,
Brian
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Hi Timothy,
The deprecation of site-local addresses only applies to unicast.
The multicast scoping is still valid and used in various ways. So,
there is no need to change the site-scoped multicast address used
by DHCPv6.
Regards,
Brian
On Mar 9, 2005, at 9:51, timothy enos wrote:
Good morning
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> >The recommended way to avoid sending such queries to nameservers
> >for the global DNS is for recursive name server implementations to
> >act as if they were authoritative for an empty c.f.ip6.arpa zone
>
> Surely this should be d.f.ip6.arpa. Should also do this wi
smime.p7m
Description: S/MIME encrypted message
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
The slides I presented yesterday can be found at
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~narten/ietf/iab-ipv6-adhoc-status.pdf
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~narten/ietf/iab-ipv6-adhoc-status.ppt
Some of the IDs mentioned there:
draft-huston-ip6-iana-registry-05.txt (done, IANA web pages have
bee
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>The recommended way to avoid sending such queries to nameservers
>for the global DNS is for recursive name server implementations to
>act as if they were authoritative for an empty c.f.ip6.arpa zone
Surely this should be d.f.ip6.arpa. Should also do this with
0.8.e.f.ip
17 matches
Mail list logo
