On the basis that this draft is helpful in certain circumstances,
I support its publication.
It doesn't invalidate the 2260-like approach, which I agree is
better in other circumstances. Having multiple solutions is good.
Brian Carpenter
Ben Black wrote:
>
> Pending any description of how this draft provides *any*
> technical benefit (for example, what situations it covers
> which cannot be accomplished for efficiently and effectively
> with the RFC2260-based proposal), I am strongly against
> this draft moving forward.
>
> Ben
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 09:16:09PM -0400, Jim Bound wrote:
> > Chairs,
> >
> > I stongly support this draft moving forward.
> >
> > regards,
> > /jim
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
