Seiichi Kawamura <kawamu...@mesh.ad.jp> писал в своём письме Wed, 17 Feb
2010 05:50:58 +0300:
Hi
I have uploaded the new version of the draft.
I hope this addresses the issues that were raised.
I have removed the Conclusion part since
Section 4 is now clear and concise.
Thank you Ron, for providing good text in IESG COMMENT.
Regards,
Seiichi
I like how Section 5 looks now, except for a few bits.
Such prefixes are defined in [RFC4291] and [RFC5214] at the time of
^^^^^^^^^
RFC 5214 (ISATAP) doesn't define a well-known prefix. Did you mean RFC
2765/draft-ietf-behave-address-format?
writing. If it is known by some external method that a given prefix
^^^^^^
includes an IPv4 address, it MAY be represented as mixed notation.
I suggest to rephrase that as "... that a given address embeds an IPv4
address, ...", since prefixes themselves don't contain addresses.
And I'd like to repeat my previous suggestion of placing an example of
mixed notation in Section 1, so that is covers all syntactical features.
Roman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
