On 6/18/11 11:47 AM, Rui Paulo wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
On 6/17/11 11:12 AM, Rui Paulo wrote:
Hi,
On Jun 10, 2011, at 3:16 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a
I have reviewed this draft. It is well written, justifies its
recommendations and I believe it is ready to move forward. I have asked
for an IETF Last Call. However, I did see one editorial issue and one
technical issue that I would like you to discuss and correct if
necessary (even during the
A small update on this:
1. David Malone found a bug in my C code, which changes the conclusion.
Of the algorithms I tried, the one designated #2 apparently performs best
of the three, once the bug is fixed. I can't complete the tests and post
an updated report until mid-July, due to travel.
2.
Hi Jari,
Thanks for the review.
On 2011-06-20 07:47, Jari Arkko wrote:
I have reviewed this draft. It is well written, justifies its
recommendations and I believe it is ready to move forward. I have asked
for an IETF Last Call. However, I did see one editorial issue and one
technical issue
Hi,
thank you for your comment.
I cannot find it soon, but we had discussion about the
deprecated prefixes before.
There, it was pointed out that 3ffe::/16 was deprecated
and now it is just treated as normal global unicast address.
So, preserving 3ffe::/16 in the table will bring troubles
in
Brian,
Personally, I think you're right. Should that be a normative SHOULD?
You were not using RFC 2119 language in this paragraph earlier either,
so I don't think it is needed.
We have a small handful of other minor edits that have come in since WGLC.
Do you want us to post a new
I have reviewed this specification. It is well written and ready to move
forward; I have asked for an IETF Last Call.
I did have two very minor editorial comments, and one personal opinion:
In this case too, the word
alone is to be interpreted precisely - a router is allowed to
combine the
