Pekka Savola wrote:
I'm not sure if I understand your comment. Are you saying the ND proxy
spec is too complicated?
Well, I myself suggested removing the spanning tree loop prevention from
the draft completely (now it has a bit in the RAs) because it wasn't
needed in the applicability we ha
Roger Jorgensen wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>>Danny Mayer wrote:
>>
>>>Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>
Jari Arkko wrote:
...
>o Whether we actually want to define a secure approach to
>proxies. Here I'd personally be OK even with no security
>for proxyi
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Joe Touch wrote:
> Danny Mayer wrote:
> > Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> Jari Arkko wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> o Whether we actually want to define a secure approach to
> >>> proxies. Here I'd personally be OK even with no security
> >>> for proxying, as long as the above issues were
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Danny Mayer wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> Jari Arkko wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> o Whether we actually want to define a secure approach to
>>> proxies. Here I'd personally be OK even with no security
>>> for proxying, as long as the above issues w
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Jari Arkko wrote:
...
o Whether we actually want to define a secure approach to
proxies. Here I'd personally be OK even with no security
for proxying, as long as the above issues were corrected.
But you could also argue the other way; the IETF usually
does require manda
> I am fine with that it is the sense that this new group can over-rule
> the IETF process that is all.
I don't believe anyone ever suggested this would be the case.
> A PS has to have continued technical
> review and Thomas could have expressed his concerns in the IPv6 WG.
Note: this document i
TECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 9:40 AM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Pekka Savola; ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] concerns about draft-ietf-ipv6-ndproxy-03.txt
>
> Actually Jim, it is an open mailing list and they
> hold open Area meetings,
F with industry. This is highly questionable behavior as even a
thought.
/jim
-Original Message-
From: Bound, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:48 AM
To: 'Brian E Carpenter'; Pekka Savola
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Int-area] concerns about draft
.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: Bound, Jim
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:48 AM
> To: 'Brian E Carpenter'; Pekka Savola
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] concerns about draft-ietf-ipv6-ndproxy-03.txt
>
> I support nd
is to move on.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian E
> Carpenter
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 8:47 AM
> To: Pekka Savola
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] concer
Jari Arkko wrote:
...
o Whether we actually want to define a secure approach to
proxies. Here I'd personally be OK even with no security
for proxying, as long as the above issues were corrected.
But you could also argue the other way; the IETF usually
does require mandatory-to-implement security
Pekka Savola wrote:
Wording could be enhanced, but I do not think this document should be
blocked by the missing SEND details.
Well, what we can discuss is whether there needs to be some SEND
support before the document can go forward. But there's actually
three issues in the SEND support:
o
Hi,
> -Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De
> la part de Pekka Savola
> Envoyé : lundi 19 septembre 2005 13:32
> À : Thomas Narten
> Cc : ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Objet : Re: [Int-area] concerns about draf
People might want to look in the tracker at the other comments
that have come up.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12623&rfc_flag=0
Brian
Pekka Savola wrote:
(FWIW, I think ND proxies are useful and needed.) Some comments
inline. Adding ipv6 WG.
O
(FWIW, I think ND proxies are useful and needed.) Some comments
inline. Adding ipv6 WG.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Thomas Narten wrote:
1) I do not believe the material on IPv4 ARP proxy should be
included. It is not in-scope for the IPv6 WG to be developing it, and
any document on proxy ARP in IPv
15 matches
Mail list logo
