Hi Jari,
On 11-10-18 02:29 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> The last call ended yesterday. We are fine with going ahead as proposed
> standard, but there were two other issues raised during discussion.
>
> 1. Possible draft to update RFC 5453 / 5342 to say that allocations in either
> one should not con
On Oct 18, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> 2. Whether to allocate an EUI-64 from the IANA block and base the IID on
> that, or to allocate just a reserved value per RFC 5453. Collisions are
> extremely unlikely in either case. Personally, I'd prefer an EUI-64 based
> approach though, beca
The last call ended yesterday. We are fine with going ahead as proposed
standard, but there were two other issues raised during discussion.
1. Possible draft to update RFC 5453 / 5342 to say that allocations in either
one should not conflict with each other. I tend to agree with Thomas that we
Thomas,
Totally agree. Around the day I published our document, I contacted the
Chairs of 6man and also contacted a v6ops Chair to discuss resolving the
two documents. I and Wes would have totally worked with Rajiv to
resolve the two documents issue. However, during last week Rajiv was
out on P
In my opinion, this document is ready for WG adoption.
- Ralph
On Oct 18, 2011, at 12:12 AM, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)"
wrote:
> +1
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pascal
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> George, Wes
> Sent: mardi
The WG should produce one single document, not two. This is pretty
simple stuff here and we don't need 2 documents, each only 5 pages
long.
Indeed, I think it's sort of unfortunate that we have started out with
two competing documents, for no good reason that I can see. Its not
like the proposed a
+1
Cheers,
Pascal
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
George, Wes
Sent: mardi 11 octobre 2011 21:34
To: Brian Haberman; IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: RE: Consensus call on adopting: draft-lynn-6man-6lobac
Support adoption
Thanks,
