>>>>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:37:43 +0100,
>>>>> "Elwyn Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Note that this is a compromise with the real world standardization
>> status. Perhaps you are not 100% comfortable with the compromise (I'm
>> not, actually), we needed to face that RFC3736 was already
>> standardized and people do not want to change the phrase "stateful" in
>> rfc2461bis/rfc2462bis. I could not think of better compromise...
> I am not totally happy with the compromise but I understand what you are
> trying to do.
> I think the words in s.1 (quoted above) are fine given the reluctance to
> change things any more.
> The piece that (still) struck me as potentially confusing was the abstract
> where the title of RFC 3736 might be read before your explanation in s.1.
> Perhaps the last sentence of the abstract could be expanded to express the
> compromise. How about:
> The details of autoconfiguration using the stateful protocol are specified
> in RFC 3315; an alternative way of using the stateful protocol to deliver
> 'other information' only is specified in RFC 3736.
Sounds good. I'll use the suggested text in the abstract.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
