-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Thomas Narten
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 8:07 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: john.lough...@nokia.com; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Issue 14 - Privacy Extensions
To clarify, my usage
Narten
Cc: john.lough...@nokia.com; ipv6@ietf.org; Brian E Carpenter
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Issue 14 - Privacy Extensions
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 02:06:45PM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
That said, I generally like Brian's proposed text:
I agree.
In such situations, RFC4941
[mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of
Tim Chown
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:24 AM
To: Thomas Narten
Cc: john.lough...@nokia.com; ipv6@ietf.org; Brian E Carpenter
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Issue 14 - Privacy Extensions
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 02:06:45PM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote
The problem is that the usage of the word server is not defined in the
document. I'd prefer to not use the word server at all, but instead
say what you mean... devices that never initiate communication.
server means other things to other people and we don't want to
confuse people.
Agreed
To clarify, my usage of the word server was meant to cover server
only devices, i.e., ones that don't have individual users using them
to initiate activities like web surfing.
Think rack mounted servers, storage devices, content servers,
etc. There is an entire industry surrounding those
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 02:06:45PM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
That said, I generally like Brian's proposed text:
I agree.
In such situations, RFC4941 SHOULD be implemented. In other cases,
RFC4941 provides limited or no benefit.
One possible tweak on the last sentence, how
I'm very happy with Thomas' tweak to my tweak to his words.
Brian
On 2009-07-29 06:06, Thomas Narten wrote:
To clarify, my usage of the word server was meant to cover server
only devices, i.e., ones that don't have individual users using them
to initiate activities like web surfing.
On 2009-07-25 17:54, john.lough...@nokia.com wrote:
Thomas,
I don't think that client / server functionality are so well defined in most
of the IPv6 RFCs, but are more of the node / router functional split. I
think giving some additional information about how a particular node is used
It would be a helpful reminder for AS if we keep the second sentence:
It is
noted that a number of applications do not work with addresses
generated with this method, while other applications work quite
well with them.
Hongyu
=
Note also that I
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 07:54:13AM +0200, john.lough...@nokia.com wrote:
Additionally, in an IPv6-world, my hope is that things will be a bit more
interesting in terms of the roles of IPv6 nodes. As you might know, we have
made a port of the Apache web server to mobile phones, and have that
Thomas,
I don't think that client / server functionality are so well defined in most of
the IPv6 RFCs, but are more of the node / router functional split. I think
giving some additional information about how a particular node is used is good
- but at the end of the day, most of the node
11 matches
Mail list logo
