On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 11:28:39PM -0400, Dan Lanciani wrote:
>
> That's why it would be best to distribute the data to the prefix holders in
> the form of some sort of signed certificates. The registar need only maintain
> a fixed-size bitmap of allocated/available prefixes.
Quite.
Actually if
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 02:47:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks Derek.
>
> Good that we decided to keep that paragraph in the draft.
Well from a practical point of view it wouldn't matter if it
was removed or not. I just thought I'd point out that there
is (at least) one implementa
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 04:13:04PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Brian Haberman wrote:
> > This document is being re-cycled at Draft Standard. The last call
> > will end on May 18, 2004.
Hmm - that's what I get for not monitoring the list all the time...
One day late for last c
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 02:43:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> [Please express your opinion. It is needed to make
> the informed decision.]
>
> Pekka raised a concern about the usability of one of the
> methods (section 2.2 (c)) to select the source address
> of the ICMPv3 pac
