Le 21 avr. 2010 à 23:17, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
On 2010-04-21 20:50, Rémi Després wrote:
Hi Brian,
I wonder what you think of what I answered to James on another discussion
thread.
I agree. I think that particular SHOULD in the RFC is an error. It SHOULD
have said something like:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:08:34 +0200, Rémi Després remi.desp...@free.fr
wrote:
Le 21 avr. 2010 à 23:17, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
On 2010-04-21 20:50, Rémi Després wrote:
Hi Brian,
I wonder what you think of what I answered to James on another
discussion thread.
I agree. I think that
Le 22 avr. 2010 à 19:31, Steven Blake a écrit :
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:08:34 +0200, Rémi Després remi.desp...@free.fr
wrote:
Le 21 avr. 2010 à 23:17, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
On 2010-04-21 20:50, Rémi Després wrote:
Hi Brian,
I wonder what you think of what I answered to James on
On 2010-04-23 06:40, Rémi Després wrote:
Le 22 avr. 2010 à 19:31, Steven Blake a écrit :
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:08:34 +0200, Rémi Després remi.desp...@free.fr
wrote:
Le 21 avr. 2010 à 23:17, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
On 2010-04-21 20:50, Rémi Després wrote:
Hi Brian,
I wonder what
Hi Brian,
Well, unintended may be taken as permitting the hash (its intent of the
hash that two different 5-tuples give in general two different values, with
only statistically rare exceptions), but better words may also be proposed.
In any case, explicitly permitting the 5-tuple hash is
Hi Brian,
I wonder what you think of what I answered to James on another discussion
thread.
Regards,
RD
Début du message réexpédié :
De : Rémi Després remi.desp...@free.fr
Date : 21 avril 2010 10:43:55 HAEC
À : james woodyatt j...@apple.com
Cc : 6man 6man ipv6@ietf.org
Objet : Rép :
On 2010-04-21 20:50, Rémi Després wrote:
Hi Brian,
I wonder what you think of what I answered to James on another discussion
thread.
I agree. I think that particular SHOULD in the RFC is an error. It SHOULD
have said something like:
The source node MUST select new Flow Label values by a
