> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:31:39 +0200,
> Grubmair Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> To my mind this also will apply to IPv6, allthough the probility that
> 2 hosts will use the same address will be much smaller than in IPv4.
> But in contrast to
> IPv6 ND provides no means to dedect the s
Hi Jinmei,
I will make the changes you suggested. I will also change the address
selection reference (RFC3484) to informative to avoid the downref.
Brian & Bob,
Should I submit another version of the draft immediately or wait for the
IESG to come back with more comments to make these changes
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 06:13:22 -0700,
> Kristine Adamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Thanks for the responses. But if RFC3542 is not updated, won't this
> adversely affect the portability of applications that references these new
> codes?
Yes, it will. However, the point is whether th
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 11:17:17 -0800,
> Bill Fenner said:
>> The essential point is, at least to me, is that we did not want to
>> force applications (like URI/URL parsers) to be aware of scope zones
>> and/or the dedicated syntax for scoped addresses.
> My reading was that we don't want
>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 11:17:17 -0800,
>> Bill Fenner said:
>> Since this format is unique and is only used for scoped
>> addresses, the application doesn't have to decide based on the address -
>> it's already been told based on the URI format.
>
>I guess I don't understand the latter se
>The essential point is, at least to me, is that we did not want to
>force applications (like URI/URL parsers) to be aware of scope zones
>and/or the dedicated syntax for scoped addresses.
My reading was that we don't want applications to have to examine an
arbitrary address and decide whether or
