On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:45:48 -0500,
Soliman, Hesham [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hmm...I agree with the realistic view itself, but unless
we prohibit
the use of IPsec, I believe it is overkilling to remove requirements
(using RFC2119 keywords) when it is used.
Is it so harmful to revise the
(B = I'd rather use IPv6 if that's ok with everyone since
(B this doc is only applicable
(B to IPv6.
(B
(B Hmm, I actually don't have a strong preference as long as the result
(B is consistent, but just "IP" seems to be more aligned with the sense
(B of Section 2.1:
(B
(B
Hi Tatuya,
(B
(BThanks for the review, some answers inline.
(B
(B Non-editorial comments
(B
(B 1. (throughout the document)
(B
(B There is a mixture of
(B- how IPv6 operates over different link layers
(B and
(B- how IP operates over different link layers
(B even
Hi,
I'm really sorry for not doing this earlier, but I've finally gone
through this one.
I basically do not have significant problems in this document, but
still have some non-trivial comments which would require another
revision (but I'm afraid you cannot address all of them before the
looming
(BThanks,
(BHesham
(B
(B
(B -Original Message-
(B From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(B [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(B Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 9:57 PM
(B To: Soliman, Hesham
(B Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
(B Subject: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-01.txt
(B
(B
(B Hi,
(B
