- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Fw: RFC 2874 on IPv6 DNS
by Thomas Trede 20 Jul '00

20 Jul '00

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede ----- Original Message ----- From: "RFC Editor" <rfc-ed(a)ISI.EDU> To: <IETF-Announce: ;> Cc: <rfc-ed(a)ISI.EDU>; <ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 12:55 AM Subject: RFC 2874 on IPv6 DNS > > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > > RFC 2874 > > Title: DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation > and Renumbering > Author(s): M. Crawford, C. Huitema, S. Thomson > Status: Standards Track > Date: July 2000 > Mailbox: crawdad(a)fnal.gov, huitema(a)research.telcordia.com, > set(a)research.telcordia.com > Pages: 20 > Characters: 44204 > Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None > > I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-lookups-08.txt > > URL: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2874.txt > > > This document defines changes to the Domain Name System to support > renumberable and aggregatable IPv6 addressing. The changes include > a new resource record type to store an IPv6 address in a manner > which expedites network renumbering and updated definitions of > existing query types that return Internet addresses as part of > additional section processing. > > For lookups keyed on IPv6 addresses (often called reverse lookups), > this document defines a new zone structure which allows a zone to be > used without modification for parallel copies of an address space > (as for a multihomed provider or site) and across network > renumbering events. > > This document is a product of the IPNG Working Group of the IETF. > > This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. > > This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for > the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions > for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the > "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the > standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution > of this memo is unlimited. > > This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. > Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list > should be sent to IETF-REQUEST(a)IETF.ORG. Requests to be > added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should > be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST(a)RFC-EDITOR.ORG. > > Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending > an EMAIL message to rfc-info(a)RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body > help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: > > To: rfc-info(a)RFC-EDITOR.ORG > Subject: getting rfcs > > help: ways_to_get_rfcs > > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager(a)RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless > specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > unlimited distribution.echo > Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to > RFC-EDITOR(a)RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC > Authors, for further information. > > > Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza > USC/Information Sciences Institute > > ... > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version > of the RFCs. >

1 0

minutes of the IPv6 working RIPE 36
by David Kessens 20 Jul '00

20 Jul '00

Hi, Please see below for the final version of the minutes of the ipv6 working group session at RIPE 36. The following problems were discovered and corrected: a few typos, the number of attendees was added and the attribution of the people who setup the terminal room demo was corrected (The demo was setup by: Laurent Toutain, Francis Dupont, and Octavio Medina (all from ENST Bretagne)). I would like to thank Jeroen Bet from the RIPE NCC for taking the minutes. David K. --- minutes of the IPv6 working group Budapest 20000523 RIPE Meeting: 36 Working Group: IPv6 Budapest 20000517 IPv6 Working Group Chair: David Kessens Scribe: Jeroen Bet # of attendees: 74 A. Administrative stuff - Appointment of scribe - Agenda bashing B. Status of 6bone (David Kessens) C. A presentation from the Ipv6 EVENT in Birmingham (UK) 20000510 by (Stuart Prevost) D. News from the IPv6 forum and meeting in Telluride (Juergen Rauschenbach) E. Status of IPv6 Allocation Guideline draft (Joao) F. European developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 (input from the audience) G. Reports on on-going projects, success & failures stories on IPv6 H. Future plans for the working group I. Input for the 2001 activisty plan of the RIPE NCC Z. AOB Action points from RIPE 35: NONE New action points from RIPE 36: on the chair to summarize the discussion and to collect more advise and post it to the IPv6 mailing list. A. Administrative stuff - Jeroen Bet was appointed scribe - Agenda was approved with one addition: A presentation from the Ipv6 EVENT in Birmingham (UK) 20000510 by Stuart Prevost under C. B. Status of 6bone http://www.kessens.com/~david/presentations/ David Kessens: The number of sites, allocations have all increased since 20000222. There are now 46 countries represented in 6BONE (was 42). The number of Queries have been once again decreased due to the database downloads by members. C. A presentation from the Ipv6 EVENT in Birmingham (UK) 20000510 http://www.ipv6forum.com/navbar/events/birmingham00/presentations/ Stuart Prevost The IPv6 FORUM event in Birmingham, UK was organised by BT and sponsored by Cisco. It was an overall promotion day for IPv6. The key speakers were Chris Earnshaw (BT) who had a presentation called "The new wave ISP" where he pleaded that ISP's should upgrade now, because the longer the upgrade to IPv6 is postponed, the costlier it will be. Another presentation was by Peter Kirstein (University College London) on the "new Internet" and Mario Campolargo (Head of research Networks - -European Commission) had a presentation on European Strategic Initiatives. The key point here was that the demand for IPv6 has to be there, you can't just say from now on we will use IPv6. Several projects were supported and initiated by the European Commission to promote IPv6. There were several more presentations (Nokia, Ericsson, Telia and others)in Birmingham. More information about the event including the presentations is located at: D. News from the IPv6 forum and meeting in Telluride http://www.ipv6forum.com/ http://www.ipv6forum.com/navbar/events/telluride00/presentations/ (Juergen Rauschenbach) The IPv6 forum has 5 new members, 2 from the US, 2 from the Asia Pacific region and 1 from Europe. A list of members is located at: A 2 day conference was held in Telluride (US) which included a one day tutorial by Florent Parent and Regis Desmeules, Viagenie. Judy Estrin, CTO and Senior Vice President, Cisco Systems gave a presentation which called for *integration* of IPv6 not a *transition*. Furthermore various vendors announced upgrades and new releases of their products which are now compatible with IPv6. will give you an overview of all the presentations during the summit. There are also MP3 files of the key speeches as well as a PDF file of the IPv6 tutorial. The next big IPv6 thing is in London in June, and there is a summit in Japan coming up at the end of the year. Also from November 29th until December 1st there is a 3 day conference on IPv6 in Madrid. E. Status of IPv6 Allocation Guideline draft (Joao) A discussion started following the discussions at the IETF meeting held in Adelaide, especially on whether to use /48s, /56s, or /64s for end-users. One of the obvious problems is the definition of an end-user itself. The issue was raised in the ARIN meeting in Calgary (20000403). The question popped up which direction to take? Should we conserve address-space as much as possible or should we give end-users a little more addresses to make it easier from an administrative point of view. Bill Manning pointed out that these were early days in the IPv6 world, so should we decide on this issue now? Gert Doering brought up the issue of administrative ease. If we issue a /56, it will be easier for ISP's. A lot of people felt that being a bit more flexible is ok but we shouldn't be too flexible. Stephen Burley said that giving an end-user more than what they needed could create complications later on. Some people felt that a /64 was too small but a /48 was too big for an end-user so a /56 would be a good compromise. Wilfried Woeber: we should be cautious about re-shuffling policies. IPv6 is overall more interesting for large networks. Having 8 bits for subnets is not enough. Giving a /64 to any end user that is not big enough to qualify for a /48 could cause problems. Someone pointed out why there was a need to use fixed boundaries when we all use CIDR. David Kessens concluded from the arguments that the attendees brought up that a /64 is not enough as a default assignment. If a LIR issues a /56 or /48 for a default would this be reasonable? Again there was no consensus over this. As the issue of /64 vs. /56 was brought up in the IETF meeting in Adelaide, people started wondering why the IETF is so terrified of giving all end-users 'only' a /64? It seems that the IETF doesn't want NAT to be used with IPv6. Also subnetting and bridging in a /64 is highly undesirable. Giving them a /56 will give end-users the incentive not to do this. Paul Wilson: There is no engineering reason to select a /48 opposed to a /56. a /48 is big enough for any site. However a /48 is way too big for a dial up account -> give them a /64. LIR's should give a /64 for mobile phones, enough for one subnet. There would be no reason for assigning more than a /56 for home use. Assign any length that a user needs in the foreseeable future. We assume a home site will have one provider but every household will have many side addresses. This so far seems not to be anticipated. IPv6 will have to last forever, so do not throw away address-space. Is a floating boundary preferred? Some attendees said yes. It will initiate the end-users thinking process of how much they actually need. It is the ISP's decision of how much address-space to give to an end-user. In fact this would be the same principle that we use for IPv4. There was no consensus over a floating boundary. A question came up what the community will do with the bits we save in the SLA space. What happens if an ISP runs out of space? The question was left unanswered. - -> ACTION on the chair to summarize the discussion and to collect more advise and post it to the IPv6 mailing list. David Kessens concluded that we need to find a balance between conservation and administrative flexibility. F. European developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 topic was skipped because of lack of time G. Reports on on-going projects, success & failures stories on IPv6 topic was skipped because of lack of time H. Future plans for the working group topic was skipped because of lack of time I. Input for the 2001 activisty plan of the RIPE NCC topic was skipped because of lack of time Z. AOB Bernard Tuy and Laurent Toutain invited all the attendees to the IPv6 platform demonstration which was set up by Laurent Toutain, Francis Dupont, and Octavio Medina (all from ENST Bretagne). Q: Should we set up a global mailing list for IPv6 issues? There are several now in various regions and it might be an idea to coordinate this. Especially for the discussion about the size of the assignments. 17.00 The meeting was closed

1 0

Fw: New "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture" draft
by Thomas Trede 15 Jul '00

15 Jul '00

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Hinden" <hinden(a)iprg.nokia.com> To: <ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 11:25 PM Subject: New "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture" draft > I just submitted a new version of "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture" to > be an internet draft. Until is available in the ID directories it can be > found at: > > ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/hinden/draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-01.txt > > The changes in this draft resolve issues raised in the w.g. last call for > Draft Standard, removed the appendix defining ABNF description of text > representations because it was not correct, and unassigning the IPX address > block because there does not appear to be any current or planned usage. > > Overall the changes from RFC2373 are: > > - Removed the ABNF Description of Text Representations Appendix. > - Changed the address block reserved for IPX addresses to > unassigned. > - Multicast scope name changes: > o Changed name of scope value 1 from "node-local" to > "interface-local" > o Reserved scope value 3 for "subnet-local" for multi-link > subnets > o Defined scope value 4 as "admin-local" > - Clarified text describing Exchanges. > - Corrected reference to RFC1933 and updated references. > - Several minor textual clarifications. > > Once the new draft is out, it will be sent to the IESG for Draft > Standard. This document will replace RFC2373. > > Bob > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 majordomo(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >

1 0

Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ion-ipv6-ind-04.txt
by Thomas Trede 15 Jul '00

15 Jul '00

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede ----- Original Message ----- From: <Internet-Drafts(a)ietf.org> To: <IETF-Announce: ;> Cc: <ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 12:50 PM Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ion-ipv6-ind-04.txt > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the IPNG Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Inverse > Discovery Specification > Author(s) : A. Conta > Filename : draft-ietf-ion-ipv6-ind-04.txt > Pages : 21 > Date : 13-Jul-00 > > This memo describes extensions to the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery that > allow a node to solicit and be advertised an IPv6 address > corresponding to a given link-layer address. These extensions are > called Inverse Neighbor Discovery. They specifically apply to Frame > Relay networks but they may also apply to other networks with similar > behavior. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ion-ipv6-ind-04.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-ion-ipv6-ind-04.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv(a)ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ion-ipv6-ind-04.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. >

1 0

RE: (ngtrans) IPv6 Policy Document Revision suggestion
by george.tsirtsis＠bt.com 13 Jul '00

13 Jul '00

Just to complement Stuart's position > -----Original Message----- > From: stuart.prevost(a)bt.com [SMTP:stuart.prevost@bt.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 3:48 PM > To: ngtrans(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net; mir(a)ripe.net; > ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com; sig-ipv6(a)apnic.net; richardj(a)arin.net; > Daniel.Karrenberg(a)ripe.net; joao(a)ripe.net > Subject: (ngtrans) IPv6 Policy Document Revision suggestion > From reading all the emails it seems that the /48 approach as the *minimum* allocation is the way the IETF would like IPv6 deployment to proceed. However, as it has been demonstrated, the /35 allocations today would only allow for 8,192 /48 per subTLA, and this is assuming that the subTLA holder hasn't split up the NLA block so they can allocate to other providers, in which case this figure could be as small as 256 or lower!!!! > I see this as the reason why ISPs consider /48 for a home customer > as too large, and hence the sliding-window & /56 discussion at the last > RIPE > meeting. > > Note that we recognise the benefits of /48 for multihoming/rehomeing and maybe more importantly to make sure that IPv6 NAT will *never* become a reality! Thus, as an ISP, we support /48 allocations if can be confident that we can get enough of them; i.e.: we get /29s instead of /35s. > Now, if the /48 allocation is the way to proceed, I feel that all > initial /35 allocations should be initially changed to /29 as the first > step. This can be done easily as all allocations have the /29 reserved to > ensure a contiguous block. However a /29 allows for 524,288 /48, again if > the whole subTLA is used. So at the same time the 80% utilisation section > of the document needs to be worded correctly to allow ISPs to apply for > subsequent subTLA's. > That is: the 80% (or whatever utilisation) to refer to the number of /48s in a subTLA since ISPs will have no control over how and when our customers, home users, SOHOs, mobile users are going to utilise their /48 prefix! Regards George

1 0

IPv6 Policy Document Revision suggestion
by stuart.prevost＠bt.com 13 Jul '00

13 Jul '00

All, From reading all the emails it seems that the /48 approach as the *minimum* allocation is the way the IETF would like IPv6 deployment to proceed. However, as it has been demonstrated, the /35 allocations today would only allow for 8,192 /48 per subTLA, and this is assuming that the subTLA holder hasn't split up the NLA block so they can allocate to other providers, in which case this figure could be as small as 256 or lower!!!! I see this as the reason why ISPs consider /48 for a home customer as too large, and hence the sliding-window & /56 discussion at the last RIPE meeting. Now, if the /48 allocation is the way to proceed, I feel that all initial /35 allocations should be initially changed to /29 as the first step. This can be done easily as all allocations have the /29 reserved to ensure a contiguous block. However a /29 allows for 524,288 /48, again if the whole subTLA is used. So at the same time the 80% utilisation section of the document needs to be worded correctly to allow ISPs to apply for subsequent subTLA's. Also I would like to ask the following question: How do we move from the current allocations of /29 & /35 to RFC2374 (IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format) and at what stage will this happen? Otherwise I can see organisations holding multiple subTLA before moving to the address structure in RFC2374, and more renumbering pain. Regards, Stuart Stuart Prevost --------------------------------------------------- IP Specialist, Futures Testbed Tel: +44 1473 646891 Fax: +44 1473 643906 Mobile: +44 7801 977290 Email: stuart.prevost(a)bt.com Addr: B29/136 - Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich. Suffolk. IP5 3RE

3 2

Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 11 Jul '00

11 Jul '00

Brian, At 10:29 -0500 7/7/00, Brian E Carpenter wrote: ...snip... > > A /64 for dialup >> is also too rigid because the way technology is going a /64 is not >>going to be >> enough subnets for what wiill be a dial up connection with a large >>lan behind it. > >Indeed. But that isn't an issue the RIRs need to think about. It is not the RIRs trying to force variable length prefixes. At the RIPE meeting in Budapest and the ARIN meeting in Calgary we reported what the outcome of conversations with IETF people was (the /48, /56, /64 options for allocation). This seemed to be a reasonable way of doing it for the IPv6/ngtrans IETF people and to the RIR people present in Adelaide. At both the ARIN and RIPE meetings, ISPs (the people who will use the address space, after all) were the ones that suggested variable length prefixes for allocation and the RIRs must go by the community consensus (BTW, at the RIPE meeting no consensus was reached, with both the variable length and the 3 fixed lengths having supporters). A second issue is to think about a way of getting the IETF IPv6 people and the 3 RIR communities to talk to each other at the same, otherwise we are entering a loop, with at least 4 separate discussions and each dependant on the other 3. Joao > Brian

6 6

Fw: SVRLOC WG last call: draft-ietf-svrloc-ipv6-09.txt
by Thomas Trede 09 Jul '00

09 Jul '00

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Guttman" <Erik.Guttman(a)germany.sun.com> To: <srvloc(a)srvloc.org>; <ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com> Cc: <erik.guttman(a)germany.sun.com> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 1:33 PM Subject: SVRLOC WG last call: draft-ietf-svrloc-ipv6-09.txt > > The following specification is in working group last call: > > Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6 > draft-ietf-svrloc-ipv6-09.txt > > Please send comments before July 21, 2000. > > Of interest are rules which prevent the locations of services > from being discovered where they cannot be reached. For > example, a service with a link-local scope address can only be > discovered on the same link. > > Since the specification concerns IPv6, the WG last call notice > has been sent to the IPng list. Please reply to the SVRLOC WG > list. > > Erik Guttman > SVRLOC WG Chair > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 majordomo(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >

1 0

Fw: KAME stable 20000704
by Thomas Trede 07 Jul '00

07 Jul '00

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede ----- Original Message ----- From: <core(a)kame.net> To: <ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 8:15 AM Subject: KAME stable 20000704 > As usual, KAME Project has released "stable" packages of IPv6/IPsec > network code for the following BSD variants. > > --- > bsdi3 BSDI BSD/OS http://www.bsdi.com/ > kernel: BSD/OS 3.1 patchlevel 0 > userland: BSD/OS 3.0 patchlevel 0 > include: BSD/OS 3.0 patchlevel 0 + ISC BIND 4.9.7 > bsdi4 BSDI BSD/OS 4.1 patchlevel 0 http://www.bsdi.com/ > freebsd2 FreeBSD 2.2.8-RELEASE http://www.freebsd.org/ > freebsd3 FreeBSD 3.4-RELEASE http://www.freebsd.org/ > netbsd NetBSD 1.4.2 http://www.netbsd.org/ > openbsd OpenBSD 2.7 http://www.openbsd.org/ > --- > > Note: {Free,Net,Open}BSD-current have already merged the KAME source > code, from *past* versions of KAME codebase. For differences between > KAME kits and *BSD tree, please visit: > http://www.kame.net/project-overview.html#release > http://www.kame.net/dev/cvsweb.cgi/kame/COVERAGE > > They are free of charge but absolutely no warranty. They are avaiable > from the following web site: > > http://www.kame.net/ > > To know the changes from the previous stable package, please refer to > the CHANGELOG/RELNOTES file. > > --KAME Project > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 majordomo(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >

1 0

Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-02.txt
by Thomas Trede 30 Jun '00

30 Jun '00

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede ----- Original Message ----- From: <Internet-Drafts(a)ietf.org> To: <IETF-Announce: ;> Cc: <ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 12:46 PM Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-02.txt > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the IPNG Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : An Extension of Format for IPv6 Scoped Addresses > Author(s) : T. Jinmei, A. Onoe > Filename : draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-02.txt > Pages : 11 > Date : 28-Jun-00 > > This document defines an extension of the format for IPv6 scoped > addresses. In the format, a scope identifier is attached to a scoped > address in order to supplement the ambiguity of the semantics of > the address. Using the format with some library routines will make > scope-aware applications simpler. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-02.t xt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-02.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv(a)ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-02.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. >

1 0