Hi Jinmei and Christian,
It has been a bit confusing with crossing e-mails and timezone differences.
I think that there's agreement for clarification.
I think that people agree what needs to be clarified.
I'm not sure if it's decided where to put the clarification (but I don't care myself, so long as everyone else agrees)
I'm not sure if there is a text which is agreed. (I've heard more harmonious responses in later text, but there were two or three fairly related pieces of text going round).
Can we confirm whether there's agreement on the location of clarifying statements?
Can we also agree or confirm (possibly conditionally on the previous question) whether there's an agreement on text?
I'm not worried at the moment, since things seem to be going the right way.
Greg
JINMEI Tatuya / çæéå wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:26:26 +1100, Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
So if this is the case, we need to describe messages which request a response or change configuration state without having LLAOs.
How about a paragraph (maybe somewhere else) saying:
"... It is possible that a host may receive a solicitation or a router
(snip)
..."
I'm not sure about whether this is better or not perhaps this could go into 7.2.X, in an effort to tie the exercise to address resolution, rather than reception of a particular message (considering that the document is basically broken into 3 sections: RD, ND, Redirect).
I think this type of general clarification makes sense.
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
