Thomas - you wrote:
unless something has
changed (and I have seen no indication of this), the WG should not
take on this topic or discuss it further because there is no consensus
to make any changes.
One part of the situation that may have changed - or, perhaps, wasn't
considered - is the
Bernie - my suggested clarifications help the situation in that the
flags are currently underspecified (in fact, IMHO, confusingly
specific) relative to the previous consensus about their definition.
Deprecating the bits would require a new consensus.
- Ralph
On Oct 6, 2008, at Oct 6,
Ralph:
Your changes effectively deprecate them.
- Bernie
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 9:59 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Thomas Narten; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; DHC
WG; IPV6 List Mailing; Brzozowski John
Subject: Re:
Bernie - The point of my suggested text is, in fact, to better
describe the definitions reached in the previous consensus rather than
make any changes. In my opinion, the suggested text represents
clarification and does not make any changes to those definitions.
- Ralph
On Oct 6, 2008,
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : IPv6 Subnet Model: the Relationship between Links and
Subnet Prefixes
Author(s) : H. Singh, et al.
David,
We updated the draft based on your recommendations. See the link below
for the new draft.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-02
.txt
We appreciated the urgency of your security concern because BSD is
vulnerable and this new version should fix any
At Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:37:34 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BSD has a bug that it needs to fix. Further, it's debatable that
separation of ND-cache and data forwarding table for a node are not a
protocol-level requirement. RFC4861 clearly describes a Conceptual
snipped from Ralph's posting
One part of the situation that may have changed - or, perhaps, wasn't
considered - is the case of implementors reading RFC 486[12] without
the knowledge of previous discussions of the M/O flags. How will
those implementors interpret the text in RFCs 486[12] and
It is not a recommendation, as long as the e.g. part is in the text.
And it already is, so no problem. (But Tony's and Fred's suggested edits
certainly deserve to be taken into account.)
Jari
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Marla,
In what sense is (e.g. on a basis of /48) a recommendation?
Alex,
I agree with what you said, but I wanted to point out one thing:
In a typical IPv6 ADSL household landscape...
An ADSL IPv6 operational deployment offers a /64 prefix at home.
The DSL Forum recommendations for IPv6 are being worked on. I believe
they are based on the concept of
10 matches
Mail list logo
