George, Wes E [NTK] wesley.e.geo...@sprint.com writes:
[WEG] now it's my turn to be confused by your comment, Brian. I missed this
detail of interpretation when reviewing the draft for
LC, and I apologize, but I think it's pretty important...
From the 3697bis draft:
There is no way to
Hi Ole.
Thanks for the review!
I'm on the fence with regards to this document. if this document is
meant to be the RFC1122/1812 document for IPv6, I think we are too
early in the deployment of IPv6 to have gathered enough experience
with what works and what doesn't. as a profile of an IPv6
Thomas,
Thanks for the review!
I'm on the fence with regards to this document. if this document is
meant to be the RFC1122/1812 document for IPv6, I think we are too
early in the deployment of IPv6 to have gathered enough experience
with what works and what doesn't. as a profile of an
Thomas,
One small comment and one small nit, inline:
* 5.9.4 Default Address Selection
As RFC3484 generates IPv6 brokenness. I think we should change
this reference to RFC3484bis.
Can't do that. That would delay publication of the RFC.
BTW, you could make the same arguement w.r.t.
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:nar...@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Flow label drafts updated
Is the UDP port number mutable? Is the TCP sequence number immutable?
[WEG] I think both are immutable because there's a checksum to detect changes.
Ran,
I'm obliged to repeat myself: there has been endless feedback in the
WG that the flow label remains defined as immutable, so any middlebox
that changes it is violating the standard.
Of course the chairs can tell me this is now an open issue, but we
have been over it many times.
Regards
below...
On 2011-05-07 07:50, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:nar...@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Flow label drafts updated
Is the UDP port number mutable? Is the TCP sequence number immutable?
[WEG] I think
