Adnan and Pascal, Thanks for this impromptu work, but really required. Let’s make it one of the fastest to be approved IETF draft !
This is the usual AD review of the draft. Therefore, I request either a revised I-D addressing one point or a reply on the points ;-) Then, I am requesting the 2-week IETF Last Call before putting it on one IESG telechat. Carles, about the shepherd, you may want to modify the text about the downward reference as the prefix-delegation will be published as proposed standard, so , it is rather a nits-tool bug than a real downward reference. I am repeating my WGLC comment about section 2.3: please prune all unused acronyms, e.g., AP-ND (defined in 3 places but never used), DAD, ARO, ... Section 3, I am not a big fan of duplicating the definition of F & Prefix Length from the prefix-registration, I would prefer a reference to the other I-D (like the reference to RFC 8505). Section 3, why writing ‘reser*V*ed’ for a r-flag? Also, this field is either 1-bit or 2-bit depending on the figure 1 or figure 2. Please update. Thank you also for incorporating some of my previous WGLC comments. Regards -éric
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
