On 2004-08-03, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 01:58:56 +1000, > >>>>> "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > I'd also be interested in other opinions ... somehow we've > > got to reach a rough consensus on this (we've already got > > running code ...) > > A quick check: what kind of "rough consensus" are you talking about?
Well, the problem is finding a balance between safety, speed and complexity and interoperability. it's a difficult tradeoff, and I've got feedback in all possible directions! It's a tradeoff, and I'd like to find a consensus position somewhere in the middle of the solution space. This is why I sometimes talk about what I _personally_ think vs. what I _editorially_ think ... > At least I'm not convinced that the unsolicited NAs as a signal for > mobility-supporting routers is necessary. That's fine: either am I. I'm happy to remove this from the draft, as it is separate from OptiDAD really (Mobopts can argue about it instead :-) ) (Sorry I haven't had a chance to fix the issues list page yet, will do it ASAP now I've got the laptop working with the WiFi ...) -----Nick -- Nick 'Sharkey' Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://zoic.org/sharkey/> "I also would like to have a cell phone that enabled me to jam the cell phones of people around me." -- Dave Barry, interviewed on /. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
