Hi,
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:27:02 +1100,
>>>>> Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It has been a bit confusing with crossing e-mails and
> timezone differences.
Sorry, I actually noticed the possible confusion when I was writing
the messages, but I simply let it go..
> I think that there's agreement for clarification.
Yes, I think so.
> I think that people agree what needs to be clarified.
Ditto.
> 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)
Actually, I'm not sure, either.
> 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).
Again, I'm not sure, either. But I agreed on the Christian's second
proposal **if we agree on the need for revising Section 6.2.6**.
I don't have a strong preference on how to fix the issue, but if I
were to ask, I'd
- at least add a general note about what the node should do when it
receives an unsolicited ND message (NS, RS, RA, Redirect) without
LLAO and does not have a corresponding neighbor cache. I don't care
about the place, but I'd probably use Section 7.3.3, and
- updated APPENDIX C (state machine) accordingly, and
- (optionally) describe a bit more details of each case (e.g., add
clarification 6.2.6 for the RS case)
Hope this helps,
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
