>>>>> On Fri, 28 May 2004 23:49:48 -0400,
>>>>> Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> Just checking: is this an agreement or a disagreement on the proposed
>>> text for rfc2462bis, or is this just an opinion on the (seemingly)
>>> fixed constant of the IFID/prefix length?
>>
>>> In any event, the proposed text does not contain a hard-coded "64" and
>>> does contain a note that an implementation should expect a different
>>> length of IFIDs/prefixes than the one currently used. So I guess you
>>> can live with it.
>>
>> No responses...I interpreted the silence as a sort of agreement, and
>> I'm going to close this issue with the proposed text.
> If the previous message was sent to me, I missed it. But yes, I do
> support the proposed text.
Okay, thanks.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
