One more time some people in the mobile IPv6 are doing a strange confusion
between RFC 2460 4.1 notes 1 & 3 (about destination option headers) and
mobile IPv6 draft. Then I propose:
- we state the rationate for notes 1 & 3 (they seem not clear enough???)
- we note to fix this for the RFC 2460 revision (in some years? :-)
- we ask mobile IPv6 draft authors to state that the draft amends the
RFC 2460. Perhaps this is already in the modifications asked by IESG?
Regards
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
