2013-01-29 19:54, Ole Troan <[email protected]> : > Remi, > ...
> can we please hold back a little and let other people in the working group > voice their opinion? To make progress, I feel it should be acceptable to continue to: - ask for clarifications on some points that IMHO remain obscure (e.g. the purpose of overwriting "the most significant parts of the interface identifier" for CE IPv6 prefixes of lengths > 64, especially since it conflicts with RFC 6052). - react to statements or assumptions that are AFAIK inaccurate (e.g. that, with MAP-E IID formats as specified, maintenance could determine PSID values from IIDs alone.) Cheers, RD _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
