Hi Ed, Thanks for your comments:
>section 5.1, last paragraph. Shouldn't the doc reference RFC >5095 and deprecation of RH0? suggest: > > An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. An >exception is Routing Header type 0 (RH0) which is deprecated >by [RFC 5095] due to security concerns, and which MUST be >treated as an unrecognized routing type. Issue 7. I think this would be good to add. >5.2 - should RFC 5175 - extensions to RA flags - be included? Issue 8: This would be good to add as well. >5.3.1 - would it be redundant to mention the default MTU >defined in 2460, e.g. "The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed >for default minimum MTU size of 1280, packet fragmentation and >reassembly." Issue 9: This seems good to add. >6.1 - A6 records: is NOT RECOMMENDED strong enough? >"conventional wisdom" is that A6 has been deprecated, while >3363 makes it experimental. Perhaps the node requirements >should say SHOULD NOT implement A6. I didn't give this an issue, as I think this is according to 2119 language. >7.1.1 - typo - update ref in title to 4213 Issue 10: I think this should be fixed. >8. - update ref to RFC 3776 to add RFC 4877 as well. (updates 3776 for >4301 architecture) Issue 11: Yup, this should be fixed. Any comments from the working group? John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
