Fernando Gont wrote:
> Folks,
>
> A few more comments on the draft:
>
> * While I don't expect the draft to list every possible use of the
> extensions, it might be good to add the motivation for these extensions.
> (a couple of lines, or a short paragraph)
I have added some text to the bottom of Section 2.
>
> * The header in Figure 1 includes a "Next-Hop MTU" field. However, this
> field is included only in "frag needed and DF bit set", but not for the
> other message codes.
>
> * Page 5, section 4:
> " RFC 1191 [4] adds a "Next-Hop MTU" field to the Destination
> Unreachable message."
>
> As explained in the previous bullet, RFC 1191 modifies only "frag needed
> and DF bit set"
I have added a paragraph to the end of Section 4.1 explaining this.
>
> * It might be a good idea to include the numerical type/codes for each
> of the messages, along with their "name".
Agree. I have added type codes to the list at the bottom of Section 4.
Ron
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
