Thomas Narten wrote:
>
> I've reviewed this document and on the whole think it's fine for PS.
Thanks. Sorry it's taken a little while for me to get back to you,
I had a couple of other things on. It looks like the IESG assessment
has been pretty positive, though.
[talking here about sect 2.3
Hi Thomas,
Thomas Narten wrote:
[cut]
BTW, what I meant to say above was more like:
This document requires that an implementation do things that may
logically (if you follow the conceptual sending model) be hard to
do, because the information needed to do something may not be
available
> > I've reviewed this document and on the whole think it's fine for PS.
> >
> > But I do have one general concern. This document requires that an
> > implementation do what in practice, I think might be "difficult" for
> > some implementations. While that is OK at one level, I fear that some
> >
Hi Thomas.
Thomas Narten wrote:
I've reviewed this document and on the whole think it's fine for PS.
But I do have one general concern. This document requires that an
implementation do what in practice, I think might be "difficult" for
some implementations. While that is OK at one level, I fear
I've reviewed this document and on the whole think it's fine for PS.
But I do have one general concern. This document requires that an
implementation do what in practice, I think might be "difficult" for
some implementations. While that is OK at one level, I fear that some
implementors will do mos
The IESG has received a request from the IP Version 6 Working Group to
consider the following document:
- 'Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection for IPv6 '
as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please sen
