Thanks authors to add section 4.1. I am not sure if the statement of “However, even if the delivery header is corrupted, to likelihood of that corruption resulting in misdelivery of the payload is extremely low.” is proper. IPv6 requires the end point/upper layer to deal with the header corruption. Could we state that this is the difference from gre-in-ipv4 instead?
Lucy From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Zuniga, Juan Carlos Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 3:27 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 Dear Int-Area and 6man WGs, At the Int-Area WG meeting in Dallas there were some comments on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6. It was decided to submit the document for WG Last Call to the Int-Area & 6man WGs as soon as the agreed changes were made. The document has now been updated accordingly, so this email starts an Int-Area/6man WGs Last Call on: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-04 Please respond to this email to support the document and/or send comments by 2015-04-06. In addition, to satisfy RFC 6702 "Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)": Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more details.) Best, Juan Carlos Zuniga (as Int-Area WG co-chair)
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
