Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter"
To: "Ronald Bonica"
Cc: "6man"
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:00 PM
> Hi Ron,
>
> That looks good to me, thanks!
>
> Regards
>Brian
>
> On 06/09/2013 04:13, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> > Brian,
> >
> > Would the following edits address
Brian
Good stuff - I like it as is.
I notice that the references has
[IEEE802] , "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks:
I wonder if the XML requires a reference to have an author and is going
to put in that first comma regardless; doubtless the RFC editor knows
how to fix i
- Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter"
To: "Dave Thaler"
Cc: "Fernando Gont" ; <6...@ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 12:41 AM
> On 10/08/2013 11:01, Dave Thaler wrote:
> > I will observe that Alissa's term "random per-network" isn't in any
of the possibilities
> > below
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Barton"
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:23 PM
> On 06/13/2013 01:17 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> FWIW, I don't think anyone has proposed "if the chain is larger
than X,
> >> then drop".
> >
> > i am saying that i am telling my neighbor that, if the heade
- Original Message -
From: "Fernando Gont"
To: "Alissa Cooper"
Cc: <6man-cha...@tools.ietf.org>; "Brian Haberman"
; <6...@ietf.org>; "Dave Thaler"
; "Ray Hunter" ; "Fernando
Gont" ; "tom.petch" ;
"Christian Huitema" ; "He Xuan"
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 9:02 PM
On 06/06/2013 03:40 PM
Original Message -
From: "Michael Sweet"
To: "t.petch"
Cc: "Christian Huitema" ;
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 1:10 PM
> Tom,
>
> On 2013-05-24, at 4:00 AM, t.petch wrote:
> > Michael
> >
> > I would have been happy to see your erratum rejected in 24 minutes,
> > because it is an abuse of
Fernando
Looks good.
One more technical point, in a raft of lesser ones.
s1
/network, an infer which addresses/network, and infer which addresses/
/(since the follow different patterns from that of traditional SLAAC
addresses),/
(since they follow different patterns from those of traditional S
Michael
I would have been happy to see your erratum rejected in 24 minutes,
because it is an abuse of process. It's a bit like submitting an I-D in
Swahili, nothing wrong with Swahili but quite wrong for the context.
Erratum are for errors, where the text did not mean what the WG had
agreed on,
Original Message -
From: "Fernando Gont"
To: <6...@ietf.org>
Cc: <6man-cha...@tools.ietf.org>; "RJ Atkinson" ;
"Brian Haberman" ; "t.petch"
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:01 PM
> Folks,
>
> During IETF LC, a couple of folks noted that Interface Indexes might
not
> be stable.
>
> I add
Hi
If I did comment, my comments have not been actioned so I probably did
not comment:-)
In Abstract, suggest
/allow nodes to select appropriate address/allow nodes to select an
appropriate address/
and s.2
/POLICY TABLE OPITONS/POLICY TABLE OPTIONS/
I think that that is all I had but will chec
s.7 IANA considerations request the allocation of a code for
OPTION_ADDRSEL_ZONE
Is this the now removed
OPTION_ZONE_INDEX ?
If not, what?
s.2 "POLICY TABLE OPITONS"
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Ole Trøan"
To:
Cc: <6man-cha...@tools.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Thaler"
To: "Brian E Carpenter"
Cc: ; "Bob Hinden"
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 6:14 PM
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
> > Brian E Carpenter
> > Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012
Angels on the head of a pin.
I think that almost all the world is unaware of the different
classifications and so the answer for them is moot. Yes, I know, a few
official bodies do care but for Internet at large, it will make no
difference.
That said, I care and think that PS is alway preferrabl
- Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter"
To: "Bob Hinden"
Cc: <6man-cha...@tools.ietf.org>;
; ; "Dave
Thaler"
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG [second] Last Call:
draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt
> I'd be happy with that, or a small appendix. Dave, is it
- Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter"
To: "t.petch"
Cc: "6man" ; "Bob Hinden"
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 6:30 PM
> On 2012-05-31 09:36, t.petch wrote:
> > Looks good.
> >
> > I wonder about the first sentence,
> > "This document describes how the Zone Identifier of an IPv6 sc
Looks good.
I wonder about the first sentence,
"This document describes how the Zone Identifier of an IPv6 scoped
address can be represented in a Uniform Resource Identifier that
includes a literal IPv6 address. "
in that the specification now goes beyond just a literal IPv6 address so
that
Original Message -
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
To: "Brian E Carpenter" ; "Benoit Claise"
Cc: "t.petch" ; "6man"
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 9:43 AM
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 07:56:43AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > On 2012-05-10 11:39, t.petch wrote:
> > > Original Message -
Original Message -
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
To: "Brian E Carpenter"
Cc: "6man"
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 7:34 PM
> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:33:07PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > I'm not exactly seeing overwhelming consensus, but the loudest
> > virtual hum was for
> >
>
Original Message -
From: "Simon Perreault"
To:
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Options for draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid
> On 2012-05-04 09:44, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:29:11AM -0500, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
> >> +1 for option 3 with
Brian
To me, Option 3 is the clear, right way to go.
Percent escaping is the purist answer, fine for URI experts who deal with
percent escaping all the time. Most of the world is completely comfortable with
URIs as long as they look like
www.example.com/user/sample.html
Some get confused even by
20 matches
Mail list logo
