Job, I think the reordering helps. Thanks for making that change. -Jim On 3 Nov 2023, at 0:18, Job Snijders wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 10:28:42PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote: >>> The size bound on the ROAIPAddress is a good enhancement. But in RFC >>> 6482, there was an element explicitly defined called IPAddress which >>> was defined as a BIT STRING. But in this draft, I find no element >>> named IPAddress, and I’m concerned with the fact that the text in Sec. >>> 4.3.1 refers to IPAddress. >> >> Ah, I see what you mean! The IPAddress Type is defined in section >> 2.2.3.8 of RFC 3779 (which is referenced in the next section, section >> 4.3.2.1 of draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis-07) >> >> At the time of writing 4.3.2 was intended as a high level introduction, >> with each subsection providing more technical detail. >> >> Do you have suggestions to adhere to the princple 'explain on first use'? >> (which I assume you are after?) > > I came up with the following re-ordering of text following your > feedback, does this seem better to you? > > https://github.com/job/draft-rfc6482bis/commit/3f824b69633a83497236892267f2ab5c8ca693aa > > Kind regards, > > Job > > _______________________________________________ > art mailing list > art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
