On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Thomas Narten wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Mark Smith wrote:
Maybe a "SHOULD NOT" rather than "are not recommended to" in the first
sentence ? "not recommended" reads to me that, well, it isn't
recommended,
[...]
"At the present time and PTR records for locally assigned loc
Note: not being an AD anymore, I might even find time to read mailing
lists again and (gasp!) comment on occasion!!! :-)
Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Maybe a "SHOULD NOT" rather than "are not recommended to" in the first
> > sentence ? "not
Thus spake "Bob Hinden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have a small preference for "not recommended" instead of a lower case
> "should not" (lowercase for the reasons Pekka stated) because I think "not
> recommended" is stronger. But it's not a big issue either way and I am
> happy to make the change if
Mark,
Maybe a "SHOULD NOT" rather than "are not recommended to" in the first
sentence ? "not recommended" reads to me that, well, it isn't
recommended, however, if you do, the consequences aren't all that great.
While that may actually be the case in this scenario, I'd think people
would be lookin
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:27:59 +0200 (EET)
Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Maybe a "SHOULD NOT" rather than "are not recommended to" in the first
> > sentence ? "not recommended" reads to me that, well, it isn't
> > recommended,
> [...]
> > "At th
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Mark Smith wrote:
Maybe a "SHOULD NOT" rather than "are not recommended to" in the first
sentence ? "not recommended" reads to me that, well, it isn't
recommended,
[...]
"At the present time and PTR records for locally assigned local
IPv6 addresses SHOULD NOT be installed
Hi Bernie,
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 23:39:48 -0500
"Bernie Volz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't the reason more basic ... As these are not globally administered,
> there are no plans to build out the zones to contain the reverse delegations
> (since there's no one to officially designate the zones
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mark Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 10:02 PM
> To: Bob Hinden
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Updated "Revised ULA DNS text"
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:08:55 -0800
> Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Hi Bob,
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:08:55 -0800
Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on the comments on the mailing list and yesterday's discussion at the
> IPv6 session in Minneapolis an updated version of the ULA DNS text is
> included below.
>
> Please review and respond if it looks OK
Based on the comments on the mailing list and yesterday's discussion at the
IPv6 session in Minneapolis an updated version of the ULA DNS text is
included below.
Please review and respond if it looks OK (or not). The current plan is to
have the text replace the content of Section 4.4 "DNS Issu
10 matches
Mail list logo