Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] AD question on the "I" bit in draft-ietf-mobileip-reg-revok-04.txt

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 15:10:39 -0500

Hi Steve.

"Steven M. Glass" <[email-masked]> writes:

> The argument is who knows what sort of policy is going to be
> required for e.g. security/access, legal/contractual, etc?  If the
> local policy is to not inform, that's the policy and the agents need
> to conform to it.  The default can be to set the 'I' bit to 1.

Since the current wording is based on previous WG input on this point,
would whoever asked for this originally care to defend it? Or are you
willing to go along with the suggested revision?

>      Does this make more sense to everyone?

Seems reasonable to me.

Thomas

---

From: "Steven M. Glass" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 00:26:46 -0500

> willing to go along with the suggested revision?

     Grrrr.  I'd archived the bits of feedback I'd gotten, but having 
changed clients, and had my home directory and mail servers changed all 
in the past year, I can't seem to locate it.

                               Cheers,
                                   Steve