On 5/11/17 07:16, Tore Anderson wrote: > Actually I'm trying to not imply anywhere that 64:ff9b:1::/48 is a/the > «WKP» (although the previous point you brought up was a failure in that > regard). The WKP is defined to be exactly 64:ff9b::/96 by RFC6052, and > I do not want to cause any ambiguity here. > > I rewrote the paragraph in question as follows: > > Note that 64:ff9b:1::/48 (or any more-specific prefix) is distinct from > the WKP 64:ff9b::/96. Therefore, the restrictions on the use of the WKP > described in Section 3.1 of <xref target="RFC6052"/> do not apply to the > use of 64:ff9b:1::/48. > > Is that better? Yes, I think that text plus the previous clarification is good. > >> In Section 3, you state: >> >> Since the WKP 64:ff9b::/96 was reserved by [RFC6052], several new >> IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanisms have been defined by the IETF >> >> I think it would be useful to mention some of these new translation >> mechanisms as non-normative references, and if need be, show an >> example of interoperability. > > How about: «Since the WKP 64:ff9b::/96 was reserved by [RFC6052], > several new IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanisms have been defined by the > IETF, such as [RFC6146] and [RFC7915].» ? > > These two mechanisms do not interoperate at all, so they need different > translation prefixes if they're to be deployed in the same network. That works. > >> NITS: >> >> In your Abstract, you mention RFC6890, but this does not appear to be >> an xref to it, and it should be. > > As mentioned by others, the idnits tool complains about xrefs in the > abstract. In any case I've just dropped the Updates on 6890 completely. Thanks. Joe