Dear Magnus;
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Magnus Westerlund
magnus.westerl...@ericsson.com wrote:
Hi,
I know the WG last call has closed. But I reviewed it anyway and I have
found some nits and things which the WG chairs anyway will stumble on in
their ID checklist processing of the
Dear Bob, et al.;
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
Med,
On May 4, 2012, at 5:50 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Dear all,
During the IETF LC for draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format, Brian
suggested to
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
albert.e.manfr...@boeing.com wrote:
I don’t know why IPv6 becomes more arcane with every new I-D. Why not work
to make it simpler, rather than more complex and confusing, with every new
iteration?
When you start with simplicity, experience
Dear Gorry;
A few matters in-line.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:31 AM, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
See in-line:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Dear Gorry;
Thanks for the read.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Gorry Fairhurst go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk
wrote:
Marshall
Dear Gorry;
Thanks for the read.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Gorry Fairhurst go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
Marshall Philip, I've read the new draft, and have a few new comments.
Hope these are helpful - happy to discuss if this seems useful.
Best wishes,
Gorry
BOILER PLATE:
I will be glad to be jabber scribe, except during any presentation I might give
Marshall
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
We still need a minute taker and jabber scribe for the 6man session in Taipei.
Thanks,
Bob
I could be a jabber scribe.
Marshall
On Jul 22, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
All,
The chairs are soliciting volunteers to act as minute-takers and
scribes for the 6MAN sessions in Maastricht. If you are willing to
perform one of these important roles in either of our two
On Dec 4, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
There is concern that this is an informational RFC.
I don't understand that. Why would anyone care?
I do have one concern, though. It would be much better if the
code fragments were clearly under the current regime (i.e.
simplified BSD
I can.
Marshall
On Nov 9, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Hi,
We need someone to take minutes for today's morning's 6MAN session.
Please email me if you are willing to do this.
Thanks,
Bob
IETF IPv6 working group
On Aug 14, 2009, at 3:29 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
The minutes for 6man session held at the Stockholm IETF can be found
at:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/minutes/6man.html
Many thanks to Aleksi Suhonen for taking the minutes!
Please send updates and/or corrections to the chairs.
The
On Aug 13, 2009, at 4:54 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Lars == Lars Eggert lars.egg...@nokia.com writes:
Lars Hi, yes, because RFC2460 says MUST use always and the
Lars intent here is to loosen that restriction for LISP and AMT.
Lars (And I'm sure Noel will again call
On Aug 7, 2009, at 2:59 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Margaret
Wassermanm...@sandstorm.net wrote:
On Aug 5, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
This I don't recall at all... I think part of my question is we
(as a
group) are assuming that the
On Aug 4, 2009, at 9:08 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Marshall == Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv writes:
Marshall Dear Brian;
Marshall On Aug 2, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Lars,
It seems to me that it would not violate the spirit of RFC2460
if we added a rule
Dear Margaret;
Thank you for this long list of issues/questions. They
will be addressed.
Regards
Marshall
On Aug 4, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Aug 2, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eubanks-chimento-6man-00
We intend to rev
On Aug 3, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On 2009-8-3, at 13:18, Rémi Després wrote:
In view of the various arguments made, here is IMHO a good
combination:
...
- IPv6 hosts MAY accept UDP datagrams with zero checksum.
I see no reason why allowing a UDP checksum of zero for
Dear Brian;
On Aug 2, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Lars,
It seems to me that it would not violate the spirit of RFC2460 if
we added a rule that stacks MUST follow the RFC2460 rule by default
but MAY deviate from it for duly configured tunnel end points
in routers (where router
On Jul 28, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On 2009-7-27, at 18:46, Rémi Després wrote:
A simple solution would IMHO be to complement to the UDP rule in IPv6
as follows:
- IPv6 hosts MUST create UDP datagrams with non-zero checksums.
(Nothing new here.)
- IPv6 hosts SHOULD accept UDP
On Jul 28, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Stig Venaas wrote:
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
I did this for the ietf ids sensor and I haven't see any having run
it
since noon.
udp[6:2] == 0
I would be interested in some statistics on IPv4 multicast, since I'm
working on IPv4 - IPv6 multicast translation. I think
On Jun 4, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
The other draft on this topic is at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-fairhurst-6man-tsvwg-udptt/
It actually doesn't seem to be there now - but it is here
(they don't need AMT to throw
random packets to port 80, and could recalculate the checksum if it
were used anyway).
Regards
Marshall
Cheers
Suresh
On 25/02/09 02:35 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I haven't seen any discussion of this on this list - there has been
some on MBONED.
So far, we have
On Feb 26, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Marshall,
On 26/02/09 03:34 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Hello;
On Feb 26, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Marshall,
I had a quick glance over the draft and I am not convinced that it
will handle a certain class of errors
I haven't seen any discussion of this on this list - there has been
some on MBONED.
So far, we have as users for this flexibility
AMT (the original need)
LISP and
(According to Dave Thaler) maybe UDP-ESP (RFC 3948) across a NAT64.
If people here have comments on these uses, or know of
Is there going to be a audio broadcast and jabber room for this
interim ?
If so, how to join ?
If not, aren't these aids now part of the open participation
required of IETF interims ?
Regards
Marshall
On Sep 16, 2008, at 5:01 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Mark Townsley wrote:
We have setup
been submitted to
ietf-drafts but missed the cutoff. Any feedback is welcome.
Thanks,
Ron Pashby
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org
24 matches
Mail list logo
