Hi David, > Prompted by this review, I reread the document and found what I think are a > couple additional typos. > > Section 4.2, Prefix Value, compares two options: 64:ff9a:ffff:ffff::/48 and > 64:ff9b:1::/48. However in the fifth paragraph of the section, I believe > there are two errant references to 64:ff9b:1::/96, that should instead > be 64:ff9b:1::/48, > unless I'm misunderstanding the intent of the paragraph. You're absolutely right. Fixed. Thank you! Tore