RE: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

2013-05-04 Thread Hosnieh Rafiee
> In other emails >"you said X", when I never said such a thing. First, I did not talk on behalf of you. Probably there is misunderstanding in the meaning of the following sentence in my last email (not emails). >Since Fernando’s proposal is not going to solve the current problem with RFC >494

Re: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

2013-05-03 Thread Fernando Gont
On 05/03/2013 07:15 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: > > "We are on the same page. Probably you read the following proposal. > That email and his defensive reaction was because he thinks I want to > have his proposal. My reaction (frustration) is because you make assertions such as this. e.g. how can yo

Re: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

2013-05-03 Thread Mark Smith
- Original Message - > From: Ray Hunter > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: 'Fernando Gont' ; ipv6@ietf.org > Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013 8:16 AM > Subject: Re: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941 > >> Brian E Carpenter <mailto:brian.e.carp

Re: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

2013-05-03 Thread Ray Hunter
> Brian E Carpenter > 3 May 2013 22:16 > > Exactly. I think that draft-ietf-6man-ug clarifies this to some extent, > as a side-effect of clarifying the U/G bits. Would it be useful to add > an extra sentence in that draft, simply stating that a number of > indep

RE: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

2013-05-03 Thread Hosnieh Rafiee
> On 03/05/2013 18:49, Ray Hunter wrote: > > > > Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: > >> Fernando, > >> > >> The purpose of your draft was not to obsolete or update RFC 4941 and > >> you wanted to have your approach as an optional approach in parallel > >> with that approach. So what is your problem with impr

Re: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

2013-05-03 Thread Bob Hinden
>> >> >> IMHO These proposed solutions are all orthogonal, and are therefore best >> defined in independent standards (that use each other as normative >> references). > > Exactly. I think that draft-ietf-6man-ug clarifies this to some extent, > as a side-effect of clarifying the U/G bits. Wou

Re: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

2013-05-03 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 03/05/2013 18:49, Ray Hunter wrote: > > Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: >> Fernando, >> >> The purpose of your draft was not to obsolete or update RFC 4941 and you >> wanted to have your approach as an optional approach in parallel with that >> approach. So what is your problem with improving that docume

Re: RE: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

2013-05-02 Thread Ray Hunter
Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: > Fernando, > > The purpose of your draft was not to obsolete or update RFC 4941 and you > wanted to have your approach as an optional approach in parallel with that > approach. So what is your problem with improving that document. It has > nothing to do with your proposal.

RE: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

2013-05-02 Thread Hosnieh Rafiee
: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941 Hosnieh, You have been making many misleading claims about things I have said or stated. Quite a few times I have corrected you, provided pointers, etc. -- which you have systematically ignored. Your comments below seem to

Re: Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

2013-05-02 Thread Fernando Gont
Hosnieh, You have been making many misleading claims about things I have said or stated. Quite a few times I have corrected you, provided pointers, etc. -- which you have systematically ignored. Your comments below seem to indicate to you didn't bother reading the Introduction of draft-ietf-6man-s

Solutions to the problem with RFC 4941

2013-05-02 Thread Hosnieh Rafiee
Dear All, Since Fernando's proposal is not going to solve the current problem with RFC 4941, I have suggested to him, on several occasions, that he resolve this problem so that the node's privacy will be better protected but he ignored this suggestion and claiming that his purpose is different.