rt (pthubert) 40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>; Mohit Sethi ;
> Rene Struik ; Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab) <
> shwet...@cisco.com>; 6lo@ietf.org; Erik Kline ; Jim Schaad <
> i...@augustcellars.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [6lo] AP-ND 22
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 27,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 5:52 AM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 09:10:33AM +0200, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> > The draft should indicated on top first page that it updates RFC6775,
> > 7400, and 8505, it only shows updating RFC8505.
>
> The 6775 case was discussed extensively
uk
Cc: 6lo-cha...@ietf.org; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
; Mohit Sethi
; Rene Struik ; Shwetha
Bhandari (shwethab) ; 6lo@ietf.org; Erik Kline
; Jim Schaad
Subject: Re: [6lo] AP-ND 22
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 5:52 AM Benjamin Kaduk
mailto:ka...@mit.edu>> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 09:1
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 5:52 AM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 09:10:33AM +0200, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> > The draft should indicated on top first page that it updates RFC6775,
> > 7400, and 8505, it only shows updating RFC8505.
>
> The 6775 case was discussed extensively
Ok I’ll keep that.
Many thanks Michael!
Regards,
Pascal
> Le 26 avr. 2020 à 00:43, Michael Richardson a écrit :
>
>
> Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) wrote:
>> On the side, It appears that the key representations are typically of
>> length 8n +1. Considering that IPv6 ND aligns its options
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 09:10:33AM +0200, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> The draft should indicated on top first page that it updates RFC6775,
> 7400, and 8505, it only shows updating RFC8505.
The 6775 case was discussed extensively during IESG Evaluation.
Note that 8505 itself Updates 6775, and
The draft should indicated on top first page that it updates RFC6775,
7400, and 8505, it only shows updating RFC8505.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 3:54 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hello Benjamin (and 6lo)
>
>
>
> We are soliciting your help on AP ND for hopefully the last time, about
>
Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) wrote:
> On the side, It appears that the key representations are typically of
> length 8n +1. Considering that IPv6 ND aligns its options at 8n bytes,
> it would make sense to start a byte ahead like this, don't you think?
I think it's a good idea if the
On the side, It appears that the key representations are typically of length 8n
+1. Considering that IPv6 ND aligns its options at 8n bytes, it would make
sense to start a byte ahead like this, don't you think?
0 1 2 3
0 1 2
