On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Brian Haberman wrote:
Given that 2461 (and 2461bis) are DS, I would find it very disturbing if
implementers did not treat the entire document as normative. In order
to be compliant with a spec (any spec), an implementation MUST adhere to
all aspects including protocol consta
Alexandru Petrescu writes:
> >> Finally, link-layer addresses have a tight relationship with what
> >> goes in the last 64bits of an address. On ppp (and maybe others?)
> >> links there's no link-layer address but there's means to have
> >> something go into the last 64bits. So could we consid
Hesham Soliman wrote:
Hi Hesham, please allow me to interfere, splitting the thread to a
different topic. I do not give an oppinion in this message about
the original message's comments.
Do you or co-authors think it may be useful to add several
clarifications in the 2461bis with respect t
Good afternoon,
>From: Hesham Soliman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/01/04 Thu AM 01:24:59 CST
>To: 'Brian Haberman' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
'Pekka Savola' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: RFC2461(bis): normativeness of protocol constants
>Catching up on email..
>
> > P
> => I agree with this. Pekka himself mentioned that this is
> not a compliant behviour according to 2461. A contant is a
> *contant*, which means it doesn't change :)
=> I obviously meant constant :)
Hesham
> Variables are also given max and min values, which by the
> english mean
