age-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 09 November 2004 00:10
> To: Davies, Elwyn [HAL02:0S00:EXCH]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Last call comments for draft-ipngwg-icmp-v3-05
>
>
> Elwyn,
>
Title: RE: Last call comments for draft-ipngwg-icmp-v3-05
Mukesh,
Sorry for the delay in replying.
Responses in line...
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 09 November 2004 00:10
> To: Davies, Elwyn [HAL02:0S00:E
Elwyn,
Responses inline..
> => I see that the renumbering might be a nuisance..
> i still think the section would be clearer reordered.
> i would be happy to divide 2.1 into three 3rd level
> sections as suggested (ie 2.1.1, ...)
But won't that create inconsistency within the document?
People
Hi Mukesh.
Responses in-line...
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 05 November 2004 21:32
> To: Davies, Elwyn [HAL02:0S00:EXCH]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Last call comments for draft-ipngwg-icm
Hi Elwyn,
Sorry for responding late. Please see my comments inline..
> Section 1: The first sentence (The Internet Protocol,
> version 6 (IPv6) is a
> new version of IP.) is not really useful for an ongoing
> standards document,
> and could be deleted without loss.
Sounds reasonable. I wil
Various points...
Section 1: The first sentence (The Internet Protocol, version 6 (IPv6) is a
new version of IP.) is not really useful for an ongoing standards document,
and could be deleted without loss.
Section 2.1 would be better split into three sections and reordered - it
covers three thin
