Keolebogile, You are correct. I will fix in the next version. Thanks, Bob > On Jan 11, 2017, at 6:24 AM, Punana Lebo <keopunana@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello > > I am new to this and I hope my comment is appropriate > > The examples in recommendation 7 and 8 in section 2.2.3 have been swapped. In other words, an example given for recommendation 7 (0:0:0:0:0:ffff:192.0.2.1 should be shown as ::ffff:192.0.2.1) must be for recommendation 8 (2001:0db8:0000:cd30:0000:0000:0000:0000/60 should be shown as 2001:0db8:0:cd30::/60) and vise versa. > > Regards > > Keolebogile > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:32 PM, Brian Haberman <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Reviewer: Brian Haberman > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I just have a few comments/questions on this draft. Overall, it is in > pretty good shape... > > 1. Section 2.2.3 looks like a complete re-production of RFC 5952, but > I don't see a reference to 5952. Is the intent to deprecate 5952 since > its content is now contained within 4291bis? > > 2. Section 2.6.1 captures some information about reserved IPv6 > multicast addresses, but not all of them. I think it would be > beneficial to point to the IPv6 Multicast Address Allocation registry > maintained by IANA, much like the way Section 2.3 points to the IANA > registries. > > 3. Also in Section 2.6.1, the names of reserved addresses, like "All > Nodes Addresses", were made all lowercase. Was that intentional? Given > that IANA refers to them with capitalization, it would seem that we > need to be consistent. So, I would either retain the capitalization in > this document or ensure that Section 3 directs IANA to update the > names in the registries. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@xxxxxxxx > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >