[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (IPng 5744) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]

To: Steve Deering <deering@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: (IPng 5744) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]
From: Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 14:45:14 -0400
cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>, jis@MIT.EDU, ipsec@tis.com, ipng@sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 01 May 1998 18:53:50 PDT." <v03110702b16fb48a2cee@[171.69.116.90]>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Steve,

Thanks for the explanation regarding IPv6 options. I was not (and am
not) calling for changing the semantics of the "mutable" bit in the
options; rather, I was seeking confirmation that the intended
semantics were those as written in the current draft.  Looking back at
RFC 1883, the same text is there also. I was apparently confusing the
IPv6 options and extension headers in my original note on this point,
assuming they were intended to have similar semantics.

Thomas

References:

Re: (IPng 5744) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification,etc.]

From: Steve Deering <deering@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: RE: (IPng 5759) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]
Next by Date: RESPONDER_LIFETIME message format query
Prev by thread: Re: (IPng 5744) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification,etc.]
Next by thread: Re: Which SPD we have to use ?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread