>>>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:49:00 -0500, >>>>> Suresh Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I was confused by the same inconsistency couple of years ago and a > thread resulting from my question failed to clarify the choice. I guess > it is something we have to live with. You can look at this thread. > http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ipng/msg10039.html Thanks for the pointer. I now understand this was indeed discussed before. I agree we should live with the confusing choice as a "de-facto standard" rather than tweaking the specification once again. But...at the risk of causing unnecessary discussion, I wonder whether we can clarify this point in the RFC based on addr-arch-v4 just saying the method shown in appendix A actually is inconsistent with the IEEE standard but the IETF has decided to accept it. I personally think this can be done as a part of final editorial work with RFC editor before publication. What do others think? JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
