Dear Samir,
Thanks for your time and comments on the draft. My comments are inline > > > Section 3. Updating RFC 8928: > > - "in the Figure 1" could be "in Figure 1". > Done > - "avoiding the overlapping definitions" is fine, but "resolving the > overlap" > or "eliminating the conflict" might be slightly more direct. > A conflict word is already used at the start of the sentence. I have changed the sentence into more easy English. *To resolve the conflict, this specification updates [RFC8928] by repositioning the C-flag to bit 1 of the EARO flags field, ensuring there are no overlapping definitions.* > > Option fields of interest for this specification: > > r (reserved): > > - "All reserved field MUST ..." - "All reserved fields MUST be set..." . > I completely agree with the clarity and simplicity of the specifications. This is actually the first time we are defining the EARO structure for both NS and NA by discussing the non-discussed and conflicting fields, making it easier for developers and readers to understand which bits are reserved. That is why we explicitly discuss this in the text. > > - "derived from the unicast prefix that is being registered" is a bit > long. > Perhaps "or derived from the registered unicast prefix." > Done > > Table 1: > > - "RFC This and RFC 8928" - "RFC XXXX and RFC 8928" > Done Attached is the revised file with changes as per your feedback. Thanks again. -- Regards, Adnan
<<< text/html; charset="UTF-8"; name="Updating-RFC-8928.diff.html": Unrecognized >>>
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
