Hi Ed,
Thanks for your comments:
>section 5.1, last paragraph. Shouldn't the doc reference RFC
>5095 and deprecation of RH0? suggest:
>
> An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. An
>exception is Routing Header type 0 (RH0) which is deprecated
>by [RFC 5095] due to security con
This seems like a good reference to add:
section 5.1, last paragraph. Shouldn't the doc reference RFC 5095 and
deprecation of RH0? suggest:
An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. An exception is
Routing Header type 0 (RH0) which is deprecated by [RFC 5095] due to
security concerns,
Daniel Park sent this issue in:
I'd request one more requirement for this bis. It is about 16ng
deliverable for IPv6 transmission over IPv6CS networks as RFC 5121. Due
to Convergence Sublayer characteristics of WiMAX networks, the below
requirement must be included in the Node Requirement. (For ex
I recieved a question:
What about RFC5006 "Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration",
or is it problem that it is of experimental category?
My feeling is that this is experimental, so it cannot really be a
requirement.
What does the working group think?
https://trac.fit.nokia.com/ietf
This may be of use to those interested in current work in IPv4-IPv6
coexistence tools. The work is going on in 3 working groups and some
drafts will be on on each agenda. There will also be some general
discussion in the intarea meeting.
This has been revised reflecting comments from Dan Wing a
