>A unicast RS is allowed in RFC 4861, so I think what you are proposing >is just an editorial change to make the options clearer to those who >haven't digested RFC 4861. Is my understanding correct?
Exactly. If I'm right the behavior described in the example is defined neither in 6LoWPAN ND section 5.3 nor in RFC 4861 section 6.3.7 even if RFC 4861 does not forbid it. IMHO it would be clearer to have all the options listed in section 5.3. BTW the link to "Section 6.3.7" in section 5.3 is broken because it refers to 6LoWPAN ND instead of RFC 4861. Matthieu _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
