I am sending one reply to both commenters. Thanks Peter and Suresh for your comments. I made changes for all of Suresh’s comments. I made changes for all of Peter’s comments accept for the responses below. Note many of your comments were fixed in a later draft. I have submitted a -17 version. See diff file enclosed. > Page 13, RTR RLOC Address definition, 4th sentence: The ability to determine > the number of RTRs encoded by the value of LCAF length implies a single > value for AFI = x is required. If so, why not only use one AFI=x value > rather than repeating it for each address? And if there can be different > AFI = x value, then the number of RTRs that are encoded cannot be determined > without parsing through each AFI/address pair. Because each RTR can be from a different address family. Thanks again, Dino
<<< text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="rfcdiff.html": Unrecognized >>>