Hi Daniel,
S. Daniel Park wrote:
This is a bit of a rant.
Please accept my apologies. I'm quite concerned by
the form of the document at the moment, although I
think that the function needs to be available.
Not at all,,,Thanks your comments as well...:-)
At this stage, I think that the policy sec
> This is a bit of a rant.
> Please accept my apologies. I'm quite concerned by
> the form of the document at the moment, although I
> think that the function needs to be available.
Not at all,,,Thanks your comments as well...:-)
> At this stage, I think that the policy section is OK except
> for
Hi Jinmei,
This is a bit of a rant.
Please accept my apologies. I'm quite concerned by
the form of the document at the moment, although I
think that the function needs to be available.
I think that the problems with the draft are not
the policies themselves, but the distinction between
"Stateless D
Hi, thanks for the prompt response.
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 08:49:54 + (GMT),
> Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I hope that there has been some clarifcation.
Yes, it helped, but I'm still not sure if I understand the entire
point...
> I was concerned that M|O could be used to
Title: Samsung Enterprise Portal mySingle
Greg, thanks your comments and see my comments (inline)
>I was concerned that M|O could be used to
>invoke DHCP information-requests
>(rather than just O).
rather than just O ?
This draft wrote as below;
[RFC3736] is just a subset of full DHCPv6.
Hi Jinmei,
Sorry about the confusion.
- Original Message -
From: JINMEI Tatuya / <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, August 5, 2004 7:31 am
Subject: regarding some comments on the M&O draft
> Hello,
>
> I'm not sure if I understand your comments on
> dr
Hello,
I'm not sure if I understand your comments on
draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-00.txt in the wg meeting. (I've checked
the jabber log to be sure, but I'm still not 100% sure). Would you
mind to repeat those?
To provide some answers at the moment:
As for the comment on policy 1 (always try
