> On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:39:41 -0400,
> Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Regarding breaking backward compatibility - this compatibility affects
> only clients, right? Can we answer the question: exactly how would
> existing clients (and I'll bet we can enumerate all the available
Regarding breaking backward compatibility - this compatibility affects
only clients, right? Can we answer the question: exactly how would
existing clients (and I'll bet we can enumerate all the available
clients) be affected by a change in definition? How would the observed
behavior of the client
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:46:06 -0400,
> Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> If we respect both the original sense of RFC2462 and our consensus
>> about the semantics separation of the M/O flags, I believe the right
>> solution is the following:
> I think we should be careful NOT t
005 10:46 AM
(B> To: JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H(J
(B> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; IPv6 WG
(B> Subject: [dhcwg] Original intent of M/O bits [was Re: IPv6 WG
(B> LastCall:draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt ]
(B>
(B> JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?
JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?=
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we respect both the original sense of RFC2462 and our consensus
> about the semantics separation of the M/O flags, I believe the right
> solution is the following:
I think we should be careful
