Hi Francesca, one last item to resolve, we should be good now. see below, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: Francesca Palombini [mailto:francesca.palombini@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 3:44 AM > To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: ippm@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6.all@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-04 > > Hi Al, > > Thanks for your reply. > I cut selected parts of the email to detail some of my comments, see > inline. > > Francesca > ...snip... > > > To be consistent with the first bullet of the list above ("It includes > > > a valid IP header: see below for version-specific criteria."), I would > > > rephrase the text above with something on the lines of: > > > > > > "For an IPvX (...) packet to be standard-formed, the IPvX-specific > > > criteria for a valid IP header are:" > > [acm] > > Your wording suggestion dropped the clear indication of a requirement. > > We are using the RFC2119 terms consistently for requirements. > > > > I was trying to point out that the first part of the section (first bullet > list) does not use RFC2119 terms. I read the second bullet list as a "sub- > list" of the first one, which is why I was suggesting removing the > REQUIRED term. Or you could rephrase the first list to use REQUIRED too. > Anyway, this is nit-picking. Feel free to disregard. > [acm] I see your point now, and I changed the sentence introducing the initial (IP version-agnostic list) to read: A packet is standard-formed if it meets all of the following REQUIRED criteria:
