hey I am all for giving it shot.
/jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:01 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Margaret Wasserman; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Should DAD be optional? [Was
> draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt -> wg last call?]
>
>
> "Bound, Jim" wrote:
>
> > UNLESS: We go back to what informational means as Charlie
> and I believe
> > as it used to be?
> >
> > I doubt that is possible.
>
> Well, it's worth a shot, and the draft could include enough
> text to make it obvious what is meant. That would only make
> a difference to people who bother to even glance at the document,
> but anybody implementing the platform would be likely to see it,
> and any marketing literature would probably not risk the black
> eye of provably misconstruing the document.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
