> > => Not in the main text, which is why I suggested above
> that we can add it
> > to section 7.2.
>
> I see. As I said in the previous message (see also below), we should
> first make a consensus about whether this is to be added. Then, if
> the result is positive, we should explici
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:25:52 -0500,
> "Soliman, Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Sorry for the late response I was out of the office.
>> > => This can be added to the text at the beginning of 7.2.,
>> which discusses this issues.
>>
>> Hmm, so the behavior corresponding to the foll
Sorry for the late response I was out of the office.
> > => This can be added to the text at the beginning of 7.2.,
> which discusses this issues.
>
> Hmm, so the behavior corresponding to the following entry
> (shown again
> just to be accurate) is not currently described in the draft:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 13:18:28 -0500,
> "Soliman, Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > => Good points. I agree with that. So to keep it
>> consistent, I'll remove this distinction
>> > between host and router.
>>
>> Okay, but please clarify my first question, too:
>>
>> >> First of a
> the change to APPENDIX C should cover the case of
> an unsolicited ND message does not contain source/target LLAO,
> AND the receiving node does not have a neighbor cache entry for
> the source/target
> (there are two conditions for a single 'case')
>
> Is this now clear
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:42:02 -0500,
> "Soliman, Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> => Agreed. In addition to Appendix C, we also agreed on the list to add a
> paragraph to
> section 7.2 (text from Greg Daley) to clarify the general
> handling. This was also added.
OK so far.
>So,
>
> (Sorry for the delayed response...I hope you still remember the
> context)
=> No probs, I remember it clearly.
> >> I've compared the difference of the state machine in Appendix C
> >> between the 03 and 05 versions (attached below). At
> least it doesn't
> >> seem to cover the cas
(Sorry for the delayed response...I hope you still remember the
context)
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:06:20 -0500,
> "Soliman, Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Sending in hibernate mode.
>> I'm not sure if this one is correctly addressed:
>> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/curr
Sending in hibernate mode.
> I'm not sure if this one is correctly addressed:
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg05107.html
> (BTW: msg05107 is a comment on version 03, and I could not get a 04
> version. Has that version been issued, or is the version number
> bumpe
Excuse me for not doing this earlier, but I finally check the 05
version to see my previous comments were addressed, and found some
points I'm not sure about.
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 13:04:37 -0500,
> Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Margaret & Mark,
>> On behalf of the IPv6 WG,
Begin forwarded message:
From: Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: November 1, 2005 13:04:17 EST
To: The IESG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Margaret Wasserman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Mark Townsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Hinden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Request To Advance:
Margaret & Mark
11 matches
Mail list logo
