> On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:08:24 -0400,
> "Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Your wording works for me well. Good suggestion too.
Thanks, glad to hear that. But please let me check one thing: do you
have any preference between the solutions? That is,
>> 1. remove "stateful" from
Jinmei,
Your wording works for me well. Good suggestion too.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of JINMEI Tatuya /
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 4:12 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [rfc2462bis] rew
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:47:32PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
>
> - RFC2462 calls the protocol for the O flag "stateful"
> - RFC3736, which we are primarily considering as the protocol for the
> O flag, contains "Stateless" in its title
OK, understood, and yes I agree.
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 10:01:55 +0100,
> Tim Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> What do others think? Is there any other opinions?
> It depends where the state is :)
Of course, but the important point is to avoid the possible confusion
that comes from the following facts:
- RFC2462 cal
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 05:12:11PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
>
> What do others think? Is there any other opinions?
It depends where the state is :)
For example, there is a proposal to have lifetime information for the other
configuration (non address) data.
http://w
One (perhaps last) question about the M/O flags for rfc2462bis:
Currently, RFC2462 uses the term "stateful" as the counter part of
the "stateless" configuration defined in RFC2462, both for address
configuration (the M flag) and for other configuration (the O flag).
Using "stateful" should be oka
