lf Of ext Brian E Carpenter
>Sent: 16 November, 2008 21:07
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: Loughney John (Nokia-D/MtView); 'Brian Haberman'; ipv6@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Node Requirement: New issue 5: Support for RFC 5006
>
>Has anyone reported implementation experienc
status of the RFC & make it a node
> requirement...
>
> Tony
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>> Brian Haberman
>> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:06 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
c: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Node Requirement: New issue 5: Support for RFC 5006
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I recieved a question:
> >
> > What about RFC5006 "Router Advertisement Option for DNS
> Configuration",
> > or is it problem that it i
Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 November, 2008 18:06
To: Loughney John (Nokia-D/MtView)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Node Requirement: New issue 5: Support for RFC 5006
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recieved a question:
What about RFC5006 "Router Advertisement Option for DNS
Con
I agree with you and with James, so I will reject this issue - no
changes needed.
John
>-Original Message-
>From: ext Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: 13 November, 2008 18:06
>To: Loughney John (Nokia-D/MtView)
>Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Node Requ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recieved a question:
What about RFC5006 "Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration",
or is it problem that it is of experimental category?
My feeling is that this is experimental, so it cannot really be a
requirement.
What does the working group think?
G
