So I think we are all agreed to change this to (0..2040) in the TC itself? Can we make the required change to 2011 & 2096 as part of any IESG required changes or should they be respun before going to the IESG?
Shawn >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of Brian >Haberman >Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 1:54 PM >To: C. M. Heard >Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; David Perkins >(E-mail); [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.txt > > > > >C. M. Heard wrote: > >> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: >> >>>>So what do we do? >>>> >>>>a) Add the range (0..2040) to the InetPrefixLength TC? (Now >>>>is the right >>>> time to do this.) >>>> >>>>b) Add the range (0..2040) just to the objects in question >>>>that use the >>>> InetPrefixLength TC? >>>> >>>>c) Do both? >>>> >>>>I think I prefer a) at the moment. >>>> >>> >>>I agree that a) is the best solution. >> >> >> That is my opinion, too. > >I prefer a) as well. It makes it cleaner for all the docs involved. > >Brian > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
