Just checking, what is the current status of
draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-01.txt? According to the status tracker
page, it's still in the "Ready for WG Last Call" state, and I don't
think I've seen the 1-week last call you mentioned.
Thanks,
JINMEI, Tatuya
All,
I have updated the Document status webpage based on comments
received.
http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/IETF59/IPv6/IPv6DocumentStatus.html
Regards,
Brian
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Admin
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Myung-Ki Shin wrote:
> > SSM range is FF3X::/32. This draft invades in that territory.
>
>No, as mentioned before,
>SSM format is FF3X::/96 in section 7 of RFC 3306.
>Thus, it is distinguishable.
Sorry, SSM WG does not agree with this interpretation.
>So, whi
Please see comments below :
Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Dave Thaler wrote:
> > Pekka Savola writes:
> > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Jung-Soo Park wrote:
> > > > I revised my draft (-04) according to comments of ML.
> > > > My revised draft is available as follows:
> > > > http://www.ipv6.
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Dave Thaler wrote:
> Pekka Savola writes:
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Jung-Soo Park wrote:
> > > I revised my draft (-04) according to comments of ML.
> > > My revised draft is available as follows:
> > > http://www.ipv6.or.kr/eng/draft-ietf-ipv6-link-scoped-mcast-04.txt
> >
> > I
Pekka Savola writes:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Jung-Soo Park wrote:
> > I revised my draft (-04) according to comments of ML.
> > My revised draft is available as follows:
> > http://www.ipv6.or.kr/eng/draft-ietf-ipv6-link-scoped-mcast-04.txt
>
> I don't think this addresses my concerns. This does no
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Jung-Soo Park wrote:
> I revised my draft (-04) according to comments of ML.
> My revised draft is available as follows:
> http://www.ipv6.or.kr/eng/draft-ietf-ipv6-link-scoped-mcast-04.txt
I don't think this addresses my concerns. This does not work with
source-specific mult
quot;MUST" is updated by "SHOULD".
It's big change.
And,
many editorial problem are corrected.
Jungsoo
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian
Haberman
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 9:53 AM
To: Pekka Savola
Cc: [EMAIL PROTEC
Hi Brian,
For the IPv6 Nodes Requirement,
Revised ID Needed
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt (To be discussed in WG session)
The document has been revised, I just want a sanity check on a couple of things,
but I think the document should be marked "This version addresses
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:58:42 -0500,
> Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I was planning on doing a short (1 week) WG Last Call to allow
> commenters a chance to review the changes.
Fine, thanks.
JINMEI, Tatuya
I was planning on doing a short (1 week) WG Last Call to allow
commenters a chance to review the changes.
Regards,
Brian
JINMEI wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:20:21 -0500,
Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
The chairs have decided to handle document status differently
at IETF 59. Rath
Pekka,
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Brian Haberman wrote:
http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/IETF59/IPv6/IPv6DocumentStatus.html
What about the other work we should be doing, but isn't done yet (PPP
updates, "link-scoped multicast", point-to-point link support,
rfc3041bis, etc.)
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:20:21 -0500,
> Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The chairs have decided to handle document status differently
> at IETF 59. Rather than spending valuable meeting time on status,
> we have created a webpage with the current status of all documents.
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Brian Haberman wrote:
> http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/IETF59/IPv6/IPv6DocumentStatus.html
What about the other work we should be doing, but isn't done yet (PPP
updates, "link-scoped multicast", point-to-point link support,
rfc3041bis, etc.) ?
One comment:
RFC Editor's
14 matches
Mail list logo
