>>>>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:49:53 -0400,
>>>>> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> As I just said in a separate message, one big question had
>> been raised
>> about rfc2462bis. It was, in my understanding,
> => The question you raise affects 2461 and as a consequence it affects 2462.
Yes, I know. I tried to explain that in my previous message, but I'd
apologize if I was not clear enough.
> FWIW, I really think that there is no point in going round and round again
> in this discussion when there is no harm done by keeping them.
> Removing them is not backward compatible for 2461 anyway.
> So I recommend we leave them as defined.
I see your points, and I actually expected this type of responses. I
do not necessarily stick to introducing the radical change. However,
it seems to me that the actual effects on 2461 is minimum. RFC2461
basically only defines some syntaxes of the M/O bits, and leaves
almost all the details of the semantics to RFC2462. So, we could even
keep the wording in RFC2461(bis), and only deprecate the usage in
RFC2462. (Again, I'd like to emphasize that I'm not insisting on
introducing the change. I'm saying this only when we could ever agree
on the changes from RFC2462's perspective (i.e., the usage side)).
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
