On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Simon Perreault < simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca> wrote:
> Le 2013-04-24 18:46, Scott Kitterman a écrit : > > So from your perspective, we could remove that guidance and replace it >> with >> something along the lines of: >> >> Check_host() [that's our generic SPF validation function name we use in >> the >> document] should never see IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. The underlying >> layer >> needs to convert them to IPv4 addresses. >> >> Is that about right? >> > > Yes, that's perfect. > > Now, there's nothing specific to SPF here, but I don't know of any general > guidelines that you could reference, so feel free to go ahead with that. > > I like this, but I would change "needs" to "is expected". (And be careful with "should".) -MSK
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
