Jinmei-san, >>> 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
you are absolutely right, I'll fix. /ot -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
