Jinmei
Upon re-reading the ULA spec, I noticed that ULAs are actually
of 'global' scope, so original wording is OK. Since 2464bis
applies to global scope addresses, we are set.
-vlad
JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:50:51 +0900,
JINMEI Tatuya [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes - there
Title: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt
(B
(B
(B
(B
(BOk - that is true - this is a non-issue here at present.
(B
(B
(B[After some study of the email trails on ULA, I can't see there was resolution of the discussion of how to handle address selection when ULA and truly
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:50:51 +0900,
JINMEI Tatuya [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes - there are 9 instances in the body and 1 in the abstract and non-local
would be right for all these places I believe.
Hmm, the changes are not small and could make the resulting text a bit
vague, but this time
Title: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt
Yes - there are 9 instances in the body and 1 in the abstract and non-local would be right for all these places I believe.
Regards,
Elwyn
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 19
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:22:17 +0100,
Elwyn Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes - there are 9 instances in the body and 1 in the abstract and non-local
would be right for all these places I believe.
Hmm, the changes are not small and could make the resulting text a bit
vague, but this time I
(Confirming a couple of other minor things)
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:45:52 +0900,
JINMEI Tatuya [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
s.5.3: Putting the value of the link local prefix in explicitly makes a
potential double maintenance problem.
I tend to agree. I'll try to revise the text without
I'm replying to some of the other points you made. I guess we may
need a separate discussion for the rest, so I'll create dedicated
entries for them in the issue tracker.
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:43:04 +0100,
Elwyn Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
s.5.5: prefix Info options are not necessarily
One more easy point:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:43:04 +0100,
Elwyn Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
As mentioned elsewhere the para on the use of the M and O
flags in s.4
should reiterate the requirement that hosts have stateless
autoconfiguration
enabled by default when thay come out of
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:09:37 +0100,
Elwyn Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The problem is the use of the term 'global' - address auto-configuration
will in principle work for any sort of address prefix if I understand
correctly.
One could use something like 'additional addresses' and then
Title: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 18 August 2004 17:20
To: Davies, Elwyn [HAL02:0S00:EXCH]
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt
Some quick clarifications:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:43:04 +0100,
Elwyn Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The confusion around stateful, 3315 and 3736 has been
discussed at length
elsewhere.
Sorry, I don't understand the point. Could you be more specific on
what you want?
I guess you
Title: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt
Hi.
I'll try to clarify ... British reserve showing;-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 17 August 2004 14:45
To: Davies, Elwyn [HAL02:0S00:EXCH]
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED
Title: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt
Hi.
Responses and comments/thoughts below.
Regards,
Elwyn
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 August 2004 09:46
To: Davies, Elwyn [HAL02:0S00:EXCH]
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED
Title: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt
Its hard to keep up with the versions of this draft;-)
I take it that -05 is merely the complete version of -04 - I can't see any difference.
So here goes with my comments that were intended for -04
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
Title : IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
Author(s) : S. Thomson, et al.
Filename
Dear ipv6 wg co-chairs,
As I proposed in the San Diego meeting, I believe this version is
ready for IESG evaluation.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate RD
16 matches
Mail list logo
