Thomas, One small comment and one small nit, inline:
> > * 5.9.4 Default Address Selection > > As RFC3484 generates IPv6 brokenness. I think we should change > > this reference to RFC3484bis. > > Can't do that. That would delay publication of the RFC. > > BTW, you could make the same arguement w.r.t. the Flow Label. And possibly > other things that are still in revision... COMMENT: I think we have general agreement in the WG that IPv6 will still be evolving for some time, and we fully expect that more updates to the Node Requirements will be needed, so waiting for all changes would be pointless. > > * 5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration > > I still disagree with the MAY for DHCP. I don't think we should > > state the 'at the present time SLAAC'. > > Note: full quote is: > > At the present time, the configuration of stateless address > autoconfiguration is more widely implemented in hosts than > address configuration through DHCP. > > This would appear to be statement of fact. (And on rereading it, I would > suggestion changing the sentence to: > > At the present time, the configuration of addresses via > stateless autoconfiguration is more widely implemented in hosts > than address configuration via DHCP. NIT: Would it make sense to change "At the present time, ..." with "At the time of publication of this document, ..." Otherwise, I agree with your comments. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
