JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Thu, 17 May 2007 09:28:10 -0400,
> Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> While it would be useful to update 3542, I don't think it is necessary.
>> It is out-of-date given that it says the Type 0 routing header is the
>> only one defined (it isn't). Ho
At Thu, 17 May 2007 09:28:10 -0400,
Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While it would be useful to update 3542, I don't think it is necessary.
> It is out-of-date given that it says the Type 0 routing header is the
> only one defined (it isn't). However, I don't see the benefit of
> rev
