mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of James Kempf
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 1:16 AM
> To: Brian Haberman; Pekka Savola
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Updates to Neighbor Discovery and Stateless
> Autoconfiguration
>
>
> > Agreed. My point
Also clarify the processing of prefix options in
Router Advertisements with the L bit not set.
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Soliman Hesham wrote:
Also you might want to consider the discussions on:
- Address resolution on p2p links
- Clarifying the meaning of the M and O bits
- Other MIP related discus
> Agreed. My point was more to make the WG aware of the issues raised
> in the SEND document. The issues raised in other places (e.g. MIPv6)
> are just as important.
>
Perhaps it would be helpful if the MIP WG would come up with a draft that
collected the issues in one place. I know some of them
; From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 1:25 AM
> To: Brian Haberman
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Updates to Neighbor Discovery and Stateless
> Autoconfiguration
>
>
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Brian Haberman wrote:
> &
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Brian Haberman wrote:
One of our charter items is to produce updates of
RFC 2461 and 2462 in order to progress them to Draft Standard.
As a part of that effort, I would like to bring to the Work
Group's attention, some work that has been done in SEND.
3 1:25 AM
> To: Brian Haberman
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Updates to Neighbor Discovery and Stateless
> Autoconfiguration
>
>
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Brian Haberman wrote:
> > One of our charter items is to produce updates of
> > RFC 2461 a
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Brian Haberman wrote:
> One of our charter items is to produce updates of
> RFC 2461 and 2462 in order to progress them to Draft Standard.
> As a part of that effort, I would like to bring to the Work
> Group's attention, some work that has been done in SEND.
>
> http://w
All,
One of our charter items is to produce updates of
RFC 2461 and 2462 in order to progress them to Draft Standard.
As a part of that effort, I would like to bring to the Work
Group's attention, some work that has been done in SEND.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-send-psreq-03
