>>>>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 07:14:24 -0500,
>>>>> Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Thank you for making these changes. The changes you've made do a
> very good job of reflecting my feedback. I believe that the document
> is much clearer and more concise with the changes you have made, and
> the document with the changes is acceptable to me. Do you agree that
> these changes have made the document clearer? Any concerns about
> them?
No (to your last question), I'm perfectly happy with these changes.
In fact, I personally wanted to make changes like those but did not so
as a compromise. But the situation has been changed since then (e.g.,
at least one I-D clarifying the M/O bit appeared), so it may make
sense to revisit the issue again.
> I also agree with you that it would be good to get some WG feedback
> on these changes. Does anyone else have an opinion about them, one
> way or the other?
> I did notice one minor, editorial nit that you may want to fix before
> posting the draft. The first occurence of DHCPv6 should be expanded:
> OLD:
> DHCPv6 [RFC3315]
> NEW:
> Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315].
Thanks, but don't you actually mean this one?
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315].
(At least RFC3315 does not call itself "Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol version 6").
> But, if you don't get a chance to do that, I believe that the RFC
> Editor will do it for you.
I'll incorporate the change in the next revision. In any event, I
won't be able to submit it until the cut-off period is over.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
