Subject: RFC 2460 4.1 notes 1 & 3 again

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 19:23:36 +0200

One more time some people in the mobile IPv6 are doing a strange confusion
between RFC 2460 4.1 notes 1 & 3 (about destination option headers) and
mobile IPv6 draft. Then I propose:
 - we state the rationate for notes 1 & 3 (they seem not clear enough???)
 - we note to fix this for the RFC 2460 revision (in some years? :-)
 - we ask mobile IPv6 draft authors to state that the draft amends the
   RFC 2460. Perhaps this is already in the modifications asked by IESG?

Regards

[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Hesham Soliman (EPA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 13:06:31 +1100

>    RFC 2460. Perhaps this is already in the modifications asked by IESG?
	=> I fully agree. The DO positioning in MIPv6 is not clear to many
readers, especially
	people are reading the draft.for the first time.