Bert, Please see in-line below.
>-----Original Message----- >From: Manfredi, Albert E [mailto:albert.e.manfr...@boeing.com] >Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:58 PM >To: Hemant Singh (shemant) >Cc: ipv6@ietf.org >Subject: RE: comments on draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-03 >Hemant, >Okay, sounds better to me. Now these sentences: >(Note that [RFC4861] changed the behavior when the Default Router List >is empty. The behavior in the old version of Neighbor Discovery >[RFC2461] was different when there were no default routers.) >I would either delete those sentences, or change the second sentence to >read: >"In the old version of Neighbor Discovery [RFC2461], if the Default >router List is empty, rather than sending the ICMPv6 Destination >Unreachable indication, the RFC2461 node assumed that the destination >was on-link." >In other words, I would explain the difference if you're going to bother >mentioning that there is a difference. Makes total sense. We will take your suggested text and replace the second sentence. Thanks much for both your emails. Hemant -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
