> 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?
>
=> I fully agree. The DO positioning in MIPv6 is not clear to many
readers, especially
people are reading the draft.for the first time.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
