Hello,
I might want to comment the Section 4 of this document.
Firstly, none of the three registries are properly specified, per RFC
5226. Among other, there is no clear format of the registries.
Therefore I propose the following changes.
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. 'Altitude Types' Regi
In message <4d4c4184.4070...@cisco.com>, Eliot Lear writes:
> Correcting something I wrote (thanks to Rob Elz):
>
> On 2/4/11 12:44 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > According to RFC 4282 it should be possible for an NAI realm to begin
> > with a digit. Strictly speaking this is not allowed by RFC 1035,
On 3 Feb 2011, at 20:10, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 14:44, IETF Chair wrote:
There is no crisis, but there is a need for action so that the
Internet can continue to grow. The transition to IPv6 requires the
attention of many actors. However, our parents, spouses, and
Correcting something I wrote (thanks to Rob Elz):
On 2/4/11 12:44 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> According to RFC 4282 it should be possible for an NAI realm to begin
> with a digit. Strictly speaking this is not allowed by RFC 1035, which
> RFC 3315 refers to, which this document references. As a matt
Benjamin,
RFC 4644, that is a reason to have this document written says:
The RFCs listed here define extensions that have thus far failed to
arouse substantial interest from implementers, or that were found to
be defective for general use.
I. e. these options are out-of-use and did
Hi,
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's ongoing
effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for
the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for
their information and to allow them to address any issues
Roni,
Thanks for your review.
Jari
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Marc,
Thanks for your review.
I wonder if this document should be instead Informational status. I
don't see here a protocol, more an implementation optimisation.
My personal opinion is that proposed standard RFCs are not reserved for
just protocol definitions -- they can also describe proced
I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for
this draft (for background on apps-review, please see
http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. Please wait for direct
Tina,
Thank you for your review.
This document proposed using layer 2 identifier to make address translation.
Strictly speaking, we propose linking NAT bindings to an interface. An
interface may be associated with layer 2 identifiers or it may be a
tunnel with layer 3 identifiers.
Is
10 matches
Mail list logo
