Hi SM,
Thanks a lot for your review, and please see below.
Thanks a lot for your review, and please see below.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:22 AM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Right, that's why we think there is no need to mention that again. Sorry, I'm a little confused. or I misunderstood what you mean? ;-)
Cheers,
Jacni
Hi Med,Yes, and have Appendix A.2 as informative.
At 08:05 25-04-2012, mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Med: Do you mean, cite RFC4291 in addition to the ref to Appendix A.2?
You are using a "must". It might be interpreted differently.
Med: Yes, because as listed in Appendix A.2, we wanted to have an a prefix in the ff3x::/32 range.
Maybe adding a quick explanation following it will make it better?
Yes.
Med: We first considered a "MUST" but we relaxed that required to "SHOULD" for any future use case which may need to map IPv4 ASM to IPv6 SSM. Does this makes sense to you?
There is no mention of that in the IANA Considerations section. The range is already reserved for SSM destination addresses.
Med: It should be "for IANA allocation" instead of "to IANA". Better?
Right, that's why we think there is no need to mention that again. Sorry, I'm a little confused. or I misunderstood what you mean? ;-)
Cheers,
Jacni
I am at a lost on that part of the text. I'll defer to you on this.
Well, you tried your best.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned