>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 06:55:28 -0400,
>>>>> Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I believe this interpretation is correct, and I've implemented RFC
>> 2462 in this manner. However, a user of our implementation said it
>> was *not* what RFC2462 says, because
>> > all "Lifetime associated with the address" pseudo-definitions are
>> > very, very careful not to say the Lifetime is actually being
>> > decremented.
>> (cited the user's message)
> A quick scan of the text suggests to me that this could be worded a
> bit better than it currently is.
>> But is there any other interpretation of StoredLifetime? I'm now
>> confused, so I'd like to hear authors' intention.
> This author agrees with your original intepretation.
I see, thanks for the response. I also agree that the wording could
be clearer.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
