Re: Consensus call on adopting: draft-george-6man-3627-historic

All, Any dissenting opinions on the adoption of this draft? Regards, Brian On 10/11/11 1:05 PM, Brian Haberman wrote: > All, > This is a consensus call on adopting: > > Title : RFC3627 to Historic status > Author(s) : Wesley George > Filename : draft-george-6man-362

Re: 6MAN WG Last Call:

While I support this document generally, I am very sympathetic to the specific operational issues raised by Glen Turner: After approval, this IPv6 Line ID destination option will need to be integrated with various provisioning

RFC 4443 versus RFC 4942

Hi, The RFC 4443 (Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) states : (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4443#section-4.2) [. . .] "An Echo Reply SHOULD be sent in response to an Echo Request message sent to an IPv6 multicast or anycast address

6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt

All, This message starts a two week 6MAN Working Group on advancing: Title : Update to RFC 3484 Default Address Selection for IPv6 Author(s) : Arifumi Matsumoto Jun-ya Kato Tomohiro Fujisaki Tim Chown Filename : draft-ietf

Request To Advance: draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-05.txt

Jari & Ralph, On behalf of the 6MAN Working Group, the chairs request the advancement of: Title : An uniform format for IPv6 extension headers Author(s) : Suresh Krishnan James Woodyatt Erik Kline James Hoagland

Re: Flow Label support in the Node Requirements bis document

- Original Message - From: "Shane Amante" To: "IETF IPv6 Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 1:37 AM Subject: Re: Flow Label support in the Node Requirements bis document > > On Nov 3, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > > John, > > > > This should not be a surprising or