>>>>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:46:37 +0000,
>>>>> Ole Troan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 3. Section 10.2 contains the following sentence (newly added in the
>> latest revision):
>>
>> If the delegating router cannot delegate any prefixes to an IA_PD in
>> the message from the requesting router, the delegating router MUST
>> include the IA_PD in the Reply message with no prefixes in the IA_PD
>> and a Status Code option in the IA_PD containing status code
>> NoPrefixAvail.
>>
>> I guess the "Reply" should be "Advertisement" here, because this
>> section is talking about "Delegating Router Solicitation." I also
>> guess the sentence was added in response to a question of mine in
>> the ML. If so, a similar clarification should be introduced to
>> Section 11.2 as well. Additionally, the corresponding client
>> behaviors should also be documented.
> yes, well spotted.
After re-reading the draft, I now believe this part is just invalid in
Section 10.2 and should be moved to somewhere in Section 11.2. In
fact, NoPrefixAvail in Advertise against Solicit is already documented
in the last paragraph of Section 10.2
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
