> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:01:35 -0500,
> Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> What happens if the value of the "autonomous address-configuration
> flag" changes over time?
>>
>> My understanding is that the change means nothing; if the "autonomous
>> address-configuratio
Hi Jinmei,
Sorry, but I seem to have failed to respond to this message...
At 5:26 AM +0900 11/5/04, JINMEI Tatuya /
=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote:
I basically think we should publish 2461bis and 2462bis at the same
timing with consistent changes. So, it would make sense to hold one
dresses must
basically be tested". Do you have any preference or other
suggestions?
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
(This message is a response to a unicasted message, which Margaret
said should have actually been sent to the list. So I'm cc'ing to the
wg list)
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:30:24 -0400,
> Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> What I think we should do is make it very clear that t
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:13:46 -0400,
> Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> (2) I am not comfortable with the idea that we would punt the
>>> interpretation of the M & O bits to a "separate document" with no
>>> reference.
[...]
> Yes, but maybe not quite in the way you thi
Hi Jinmei,
Thanks for the response!
If we remove "stateful" from rfc2462bis, I think we'd also need to
change the name of the bit in rfc2461bis accordingly. Otherwise, the
result would rather be more confusing. So I asked the wg whether
- we should clean up all the occurrences of "stateful" and r
Hello,
Sorry about the long delay. I'll first comment on the two major
points.
>>>>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:05:53 -0400,
>>>>> Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I finished my AD review of draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-06.txt. I have
Hi Margaret,
>>>>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:05:53 -0400,
>>>>> Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I finished my AD review of draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-06.txt. I have
> several comments on this document that I believe should be resolved
&
Hi Jinmei,
I finished my AD review of draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-06.txt. I have
several comments on this document that I believe should be resolved
before this document is sent to IETF Last Call for publication as a
Draft Standard.
All of my comments are included below, but my most serious
