Hi SM, Thanks a lot for your review, and please see below.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:22 AM, SM <s...@resistor.net> wrote: > Hi Med, > > At 08:05 25-04-2012, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > >> Med: Do you mean, cite RFC4291 in addition to the ref to Appendix A.2? >> > > Yes, and have Appendix A.2 as informative. > > > Med: Yes, because as listed in Appendix A.2, we wanted to have an a >> prefix in the ff3x::/32 range. >> > > You are using a "must". It might be interpreted differently. > > Maybe adding a quick explanation following it will make it better? > > Med: We first considered a "MUST" but we relaxed that required to >> "SHOULD" for any future use case which may need to map IPv4 ASM to IPv6 >> SSM. Does this makes sense to you? >> > > Yes. > > > Med: It should be "for IANA allocation" instead of "to IANA". Better? >> > > There is no mention of that in the IANA Considerations section. The range > is already reserved for SSM destination addresses. Right, that's why we think there is no need to mention that again. Sorry, I'm a little confused. or I misunderstood what you mean? ;-) Cheers, Jacni > I am at a lost on that part of the text. I'll defer to you on this. > > Well, you tried your best. > > > Regards, > -sm > ______________________________**_________________ > MBONED mailing list > mbo...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/mboned<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned> >
