Joe,
On 01/24/2013 04:35 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
FWIW, this document includes text that somewhat defeats the previous
recommendations of TCPM regarding RFC5927.
RFC5927 includes specific text indicating that the techniques described
are being documented, but that the TCP standard was NOT being
On 1/24/2013 1:24 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
Joe,
On 01/24/2013 04:35 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
FWIW, this document includes text that somewhat defeats the previous
recommendations of TCPM regarding RFC5927.
RFC5927 includes specific text indicating that the techniques described
are being
Thanks - I wasn't positive about the second one. Glad to have it
resolved quickly.
Joe
On 1/24/2013 5:57 PM, Allison Mankin wrote:
Joe and Fernando,
I just looked at how RFC 5297 is handled in the draft, to be that other
pair of eyes.
The first fix is right, to remove reference to RFC 5297
Hi, Bob and 6man,
We do need an answer from 6man to move forward. So far, in my understanding,
6man has not answered the requirement/question raised by softwire chair.
Personally, I support the proposal to reserve a 4rd IID range (we can have max
16 fixed bit in order to reduce the reserved
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Simon Perreault
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:50 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: RFC6724/RFC3484bis: Destination selection not considering
well-known NAT64 prefix
Le 2013-01-23
