On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 11:10:40AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > > I see no value in introducing a new separator.
> >
> > The value is providing a long-term path to cut and paste. Otherw
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 11:10:40AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > I see no value in introducing a new separator.
>
> The value is providing a long-term path to cut and paste. Otherwise,
> I assume we would indeed choose the %25 approach.
OK, I change my statement to:
I do not believe tha
Original Message
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-impatient-nud-02.txt
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:48:19 -0700
From:
To:
CC:
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-6man-impatient-nud-02.txt
has been successfully submitted by Erik Nordmark and posted to the
IETF
On 01/08/2012 18:16, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 09:42:44AM -0700, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be an option to have all applications & systems accept
>> as input both formats, but only give as output the new one?
>> i.e. browsers already rewrite URIs.
>
* Karl Auer
> - it is not explicit that the M and O flags are completely
> independent of each other. Common practice is to treat them as
> independent, and I can see no good reason to link them in the RFC or
> anywhere else.
RFC 4861 section 4.2 seems to me to be pretty clear about this:
«If th
