At Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:58:18 -0400, "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shem...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Thanks much for the review. I think you have some section numbers > mixed up from our draft in your review. I have snipped below all of > your comments where I believe section numbers could be wrong. Could > you please go thru the section numbers below and fix them for us and > then we'd be happy to respond to your comments. I think where you > say "Section 4" it is Section 3. Likewise for "Section 3, bullet 7" > and "Section 3 bullet 6" should be "Section 2, bullet 6 and 7". We > really weren't sure about "Section 3, bullet 3" because both > sections 2 and 3 in our document have a bullet 3. Oops, my bad. I've fixed the reference error below. > - Section 3, bullet 3. I disagree with this bullet as stated above. > I won't go into further details on this at the moment because it's a > rather meta level issue. I meant Section 2, bullet 3 here. > - Section 3, bullet 6: I don't understand this at all. Why is this > mentioned? Why only multicast? I meant Section 2, bullet 6 here. > - Section 3, bullet 7: this rule isn't enforceable. I thought I > already pointed it out before (please google it). I meant Section 2, bullet 7 here. > - Section 4, last para: I meant Section 3 here. --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
