Thanks, I'll update the text and reference accordingly.
Hesham
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:17 AM
> To: Soliman Hesham
> Cc: James Kempf; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [rfc2
>The
>details of how one uses ND on NBMA links is an area for further
>study.
>
> => Perhaps this statement can be made clearer. I assume that
> it is referring to applying some form of multicast to
> NBMA links? Perhaps Erik or Thomas can shed some light
> on the intention here.
Wh
age -
From: "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "James Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 8:40 PM
Subject: RE: [rfc2461bis] Security issues
Sorry, I forgot to reply to one point.
> I thought 2461 explicitly did not
2641
directly on NBMA links, as perhaps 3314 and 3316 indicate, then references
to those.
jak
- Original Message -
From: "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "James Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, Jun
Sorry, I forgot to reply to one point.
> I thought 2461 explicitly did not apply to point to point links or
> point-to-point like links such as cellphones, and other
> links that were NBMA
> (speaking of which, I suppose the actual NBMA technology has
> been worked out
> by now, so the sta
James,
Thank you for the review.
> 1) Much of what is in the Section 11.1 seems a summary of
> RFC 3756. On the
> one hand, I suppose it is helpful to refresh the reader's
> memory, on the
> other, it could shorten the spec and make for less reading.
> It's just a
> stylistic issue.
=
Hesham,
Section 3 looks good.
On Section 11, I've got the following comments:
1) Much of what is in the Section 11.1 seems a summary of RFC 3756. On the
one hand, I suppose it is helpful to refresh the reader's memory, on the
other, it could shorten the spec and make for less reading. It's just
