Thomas, On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 06:33, Thomas Narten wrote: > > Chairs, Perhaps we need to just accept that we can't get consensus on > revised wording for the M&O bits and leave the text unchanged > relative to RFC2461? > > It's long past time for getting closure on this issue and moving on, > yet we continue to have the same back-and-forth on the mailing > list. :-( >
I agree with this. It really boggles the mind that this conversation has occurred and is still going on at least 10 years after I saw the first argument about the M&O bits. We need to stop believing that these bits can force the hosts on a network to implement something or if they have implemented it, enable something. They can't. Jeeze, what a sorry state of affairs. Tim Hartrick -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
