On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 08:01, Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net
wrote:
On Mar 11, 2011, at 3:32 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
I'm saying the reasons people are tempted to disable RFC4941 are
misplaced.
+1
Consider that if I want privacy and you won't let me use RFC4941, I
might just make up
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 17:10, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
BTW there is also the issue of interaction with ILNP, which
has been recommended to the IETF by the RRG chairs.
ILNP is barely experimental, its probability of being widely deployed is
totally unknown, and in
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p
Reviewer:
Thomas, I agree with everything you say below except that some of what
you say may, in fact, be the justifications we are looking for. I
didn't say examples, I said explanations. See below ...
On 11/22/2006 09:06 AM, Thomas Narten allegedly wrote:
Scott W Brim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt.
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html. Please
resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Summary statement: This draft is
