Hi, guys.
> Question to the WG (and to Barry, given his recent guidance on Errata) - would
> it be appropriate to file an errata on 6547 noting the additional RFCs that
> it should
> be updating, is this a matter of issuing a 6547-bis, or does it simply not
> matter?
This has come up with some
FYI, as another data point that might be added to the appendix of alternatives
and things that are already out there, would be using 's' as the separator
rather
than '-'.
That's the character that's used by ipv6-literal.net names.
See http://ipv6-literal.com/ for a converter, and
http://technet.m
All,
This message starts a one week 6MAN Working Group on advancing:
Title : UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets
Author(s) : Marshall Eubanks
P.F. Chimento
Magnus Westerlund
Filename: draft-ietf-6ma
On 8/6/12 12:09 PM, George, Wes wrote:
Adding 6man, since the RFCs referenced are from that working group.
Speaking as the author of 6547, which I wrote to fix the fact that
6164 didn't formally obsolete 3627 when it changed IETF's guidance on
the matter, I didn't know about the other RFCs that
WG,
I have helped Philip and Marshall to get an updated version addressing
the WG last call comments submitted. This version addresses mine and
Gorry's comments to the mailing list earlier this year. During the
editing and subsequent review Gorry spotted an additional document
structure issue with
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets
Author(s) : Marshall Eubanks
P.F. Chim
