Hello Adnan: Can you please reply to Eric? Answering point by point is part of the game…
A bientôt; Pascal > Le 19 mai 2025 à 11:46, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > 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]
