>>>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 19:30:02 +0200 (EET),
>>>>> Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Proposed resolution: change the reference to the old RFC (2463), and
>> describe this part as a new feature. More concretely, I'll revise
>> this part as follows:
>>
>> ...
>> Moreover, if the packets destination address is a unicast address,
>> an ICMP Destination Unreachable message [4] with Code 2 ("beyond
>> scope of source address") is sent to the source of the original
>> packet. Note: Code 2, as defined in [4], had a different
>> semantics, but the semantics has already been obsolete and the
>> IANA is going to re-assign the value for the new purpose.
>> (where [4] now refers to RFC2463.)
> Fine with me.
> A few grammar checks; I'm assuming 'semantics' is not a special word
> (plural but acting as a singular form):
> s/packets/packet's/ ?
Yes, this was a typo. Thanks for the correction.
> s/a different/different/ ?
> s/semantics has already been obsolete/semantics are already obsolete/
> (or "have already been obsoleted"?
Hmm, my Cobuild dictionary says "semantics" is an uncountable noun, so
the original wording should be okay according to the dictionary.
BTW, this part may be rewritten based on a different branch of this
thread, and "semantics" may disappear there. If the final text still
uses the word, I'll use it as an uncountable noun. (But I don't have
a particular opinion on this. If others stronglly encourage to use it
as a plural, I'll follow it.)
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
