I have read and reviewed -05.
The document is a good start, but I have some issues with it currently.
Summary of substantial technical issues:
1) In the updated prefix policy table, the order of rows is ok, but the
precedence
values are a major problem that would make it difficult if not
A marked-up version with my full comments in context can be found at
http://research.microsoft.com/~dthaler/draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.pdf
-Dave
-Original Message-
From: Dave Thaler
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 7:49 PM
To: 6man
Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter'; Arifumi Matsumoto
Dear 6man,
Kerry and I talked about this. It seems to me that, given we allow for
IPv6 literals in URIs principally for diagnostic purposes, it is indeed
unfortunate that http://[fe80::206:98ff:fe00:232%tap0] is not
allowed by the formal syntax.
This would need to be fixed by a small RFC that
On Nov 17, 2011, at 13:00, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Do people agree that this is a reasonable thing to do?
Yes please!
I trust that the update spec will explain the for debugging focus and will
have appropriate warning
-- that the link identifiers are node-local names with node-local
