On 3/9/11 1:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> Ditto. What the draft is talking about is default behaviour, absent
> anything requiring prior agreement or signalling.
>
> I take your whole comment as a recommendation to remove section 4.
I would agree with removing section 4. Without a defined
On 3/11/11 11:03 AM, Don Sturek wrote:
> Can I ask about the current WG status of the following drafts:
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header/
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option/
>
The WG Last Call completed for these documents. Ther
Can I ask about the current WG status of the following drafts:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option/
Also, the following draft has not been adopted by WG (can it?):
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft
One small clarification from the chairs to avoid any confusion.
>
>> The document should be IETF last called.
>
> No objection.
All documents the 6man w.g. advances to the IESG are IETF last called. It's
not an optional step.
Bob & Brian
--
On Mar 11, 2011, at 3:32 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
>> I'm saying the reasons people are tempted to disable RFC4941 are misplaced.
>
> +1
>
> Consider that if I want privacy and you won't let me use RFC4941, I might
> just make up a new MAC address each time I connect.
>
> Consider also t
On Mar 10, 2011, at 8:57 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Paul Chilton
>> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:18 AM
>> To: james woodyatt
>> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: draft-gont-6man-managing-priv
Mark Smith writes:
> I also think there is a fundamentally incorrect assumption is being
> made - that IPv6 addresses and humans are tightly coupled.
Actually, if you look at trends, they are increasingly tightly
coupled.
Internet access by humans is increasingly through single-owner devices
(r
