Not really since this document would not refer to itself and does not
refer to itself as standard ND. It was very clear in the previous
version what standard ND meant.
geoff
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 19:43 +0900, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2009, at 19:35, Samita Chakrabarti wrote:
>
> > 1.Document refers to "Classic ND" which brings up some questions in
> > mind - should not it be "Standard ND" ?
>
> No. Both 6lowpan-ND and RFC 4861 will be standards-track, so
> "Standard ND" is ambiguous.
>
> Gruesse, Carsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
