I think these are just editorial nits. The draft talks about "commercial" but I think the same issues are present if there is a non-commercial ISP that wants to offer non-commercial IPv6 service. So in terms of describing the need for the technology it is probably best to drop the "commercial" designation.
Similarely, the statement about "boost IPv6 business quick as possible." might also distract from the technical content of the document. The document talks about "RA (Router Avertisement)". It would be good to add a reference to the proxy RA document (as "work in progress") to make the reference explicit. I see some spelling errors like "signle. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
