Hi Brian, CC: Fred Baker, see below... > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 2:53 AM > To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); [email protected]; > General Area Review Team > Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03 > > Hi Al, > > On 03/08/2015 06:45, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote: > > <big snip> > > > If we seek to identify several more distinctions for "packets of > > Type-P", then I would prefer to update the RFC 2330 Framework Section > > 13 on this topic, so it's more widely applicable and less IPv4-centric. > > I'll take immediate steps to accomplish this update. > > Yes, I think that is much more constructive than trying to do it > piecemeal in the 2679bis draft. Perhaps you can contrive to plant a > "forward reference" to 2330bis here, by saying that future extensions of > the "packets of Type-P" definition will apply. That would take care of > all my issues in one go. > > Brian
[ACM] Besides planting the forward reference, I assembled a knowledgeable author team and we produced a first draft update to RFC 2330 in the areas of Type-P and standard-formed packets. Thanks for your early suggestions on the text. Also, thanks to Fred Baker who helped us understand some of the IPv6 complexities. The 00 text is here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-00 Comments welcome, Al (for the co-authors) _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
