>>>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:08:06 +0900,
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Beside this, i would just argue that psychologically i'd love to see
>> the differentiation UNICAST/MULTICAST to show up in the API parameters
>> explicitly to help developes think about the difference, but that's just
>> cosmetic. I agree with you that just a _MULTICAST_ option like Eric sugested
>> is a bit confusing, but i have no strong opinions here. The real advantage
>> of NOT using IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU is to catch the hopefully small/non-existing
>> number of applications who already think that the value 0 to it is the
>> default and thus set it.
> Then you seem to agree with my proposal (thanks). What about you,
> Erik? If you're okay too, I'll soon update the draft according to
> the proposal.
Though I've not seen an explicit response, I guess we've reached a
consensus. So my next question is, what should I do with this in
terms of the standardization procedure? Should I submit a new draft
and ask chairs a new wg last call?
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
