Hi, Hosnieh,
On 12/17/2012 08:25 PM, Rafiee, Hosnieh wrote:
>> To clarify my question from my last email, I raise three important
>> issues here:
>>
>> 1 - The assumption made in this draft is not true because,
>> according
>
>>> What's the "assumption" you're referring to?
> - One of your assu
Thank you for your response, please find my reply below
-Original Message-
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 5:32 PM
To: Rafiee, Hosnieh
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; bob.hin...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: FW: 6MAN WG Last Call:
Hi, Hosnieh,
Thanks so
Hi, Hosnieh,
Thanks so much for your feedback! Please find my comments inline...
On 12/17/2012 12:18 PM, Rafiee, Hosnieh wrote:
> Follow-up
>
> To clarify my question from my last email, I raise three important
> issues here:
>
> 1 - The assumption made in this draft is not true because, accor
Hi, Brian,
Thanks so much for your feedback! -- Please find my comments inline...
On 12/13/2012 03:57 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Substantive
>
>
> * It would be quite useful to explicitly define "atomic fragment" prior
> to using it in the document. This could be done in the
Follow-up
To clarify my question from my last email, I raise three important issues here:
1 - The assumption made in this draft is not true because, according to RFC
4941, the IID is randomly generated and so will never be the same value (The
use of stable storage in the first approach and the
Hello,
I have one question regarding this draft
What is the main difference of your approach with RFC 3972 and 4941?
As explained in section 3 of this draft, F() is a cryptography algorithm. In
both ,privacy extension and RFC 3972 (if sec value is 0), discussed almost the
same approach as you des
All,
This message starts a three week (to account for the holidays) 6MAN Working
Group on advancing:
Title : A method for Generating Stable Privacy-Enhanced
Addresses with IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)
Author(s) : Fern
