Re: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

On 05/03/2013 07:15 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: > > "We are on the same page. Probably you read the following proposal. > That email and his defensive reaction was because he thinks I want to > have his proposal. My reaction (frustration) is because you make assertions such as this. e.g. how can yo

Re: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

- Original Message - > From: Ray Hunter > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: 'Fernando Gont' ; ipv6@ietf.org > Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013 8:16 AM > Subject: Re: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941 > >> Brian E Carpenter >> 3 May 2013 22:16 >> >> E

Re: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

> Brian E Carpenter > 3 May 2013 22:16 > > Exactly. I think that draft-ietf-6man-ug clarifies this to some extent, > as a side-effect of clarifying the U/G bits. Would it be useful to add > an extra sentence in that draft, simply stating that a number of > indep

RE: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

> On 03/05/2013 18:49, Ray Hunter wrote: > > > > Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: > >> Fernando, > >> > >> The purpose of your draft was not to obsolete or update RFC 4941 and > >> you wanted to have your approach as an optional approach in parallel > >> with that approach. So what is your problem with impr

Re: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

>> >> >> IMHO These proposed solutions are all orthogonal, and are therefore best >> defined in independent standards (that use each other as normative >> references). > > Exactly. I think that draft-ietf-6man-ug clarifies this to some extent, > as a side-effect of clarifying the U/G bits. Wou

Re: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

On 03/05/2013 18:49, Ray Hunter wrote: > > Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: >> Fernando, >> >> The purpose of your draft was not to obsolete or update RFC 4941 and you >> wanted to have your approach as an optional approach in parallel with that >> approach. So what is your problem with improving that docume