g as current architecture(or situation) is supported, I still believe
that our draft has value to provide a right guidance on the usage of M/O flags
to implementors.
Joseph
--- Original Message ---
Sender : James Carlson<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date : 2008-10-08 21:06 (GMT+09:00)
Titl
l Message-
From: HYUN WOOK CHA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:41 PM
To: Brian Haberman
Cc: Ted Lemon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org; Bernie
Volz (volz)
Subject: Re: Re: Request for Advices on the draft
"draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt"
Hell
IL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:41 PM
To: Brian Haberman
Cc: Ted Lemon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org; Bernie
Volz (volz)
Subject: Re: Re: Request for Advices on the draft
"draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt"
Hello, Brian.
As I presented last IETF 6MAN meeting
Hello, Brian.
As I presented last IETF 6MAN meeting, our draft aims to provide automatic
revocation of DHCPv6 clients in case that invocation of clients can be done in
accordance with the RFC2462. Thus, requirement of our security model is that we
should not intoduce additional threats to the
Hello, Ted.
That's correct. I believe that the ability to stop DHCP clients using M/O bits
in RA is required once they were invoked by M/O bits in RA.
Joseph
--- Original Message ---
Sender : Ted Lemon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date : 2008-09-30 09:36 (GMT+09:00)
Title : Re: Request for A
Hello, Thomas.
Thank you for your clarifications.
Please see my comments below.
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 12:18 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
