Bob,
I hope it is not too late to send comments. I don't know whether today
(8 March) is included or not in the LC period.
I have just reread the draft and I have 3 comments. Comments #1 and #3
are clearly not substantive. Comment #2 is may be seen as substantive
and that's why I've Cc'ed the list.
- I think that the text explaining the exception with unicast
addresses beginning with binary 000 at section 2.5.4 ("Global Unicast
Addresses") should be moved to section 2.5.1 ("Interface Identifier")
where the author talks about the exception but without giving an
explanation. It may be frustrating for the reader to have to wait
until reaching section 2.5.4 in order to learn about the rationale of
that exeption...
- In section 2.7 ("Multicast Addresses"):
"link-local and site-local multicast scopes span the same topological
regions as the corresponding unicast scopes."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
==> Maybe it should be stated clearly whether we may or may not keep
using "site-local" terminology in the multicast context while that
terminology has been deprecated in the unicast context...
- Section 2.8: "A Node's Required Addresses"
^
==> Maybe rather saying "Node's Required Addresses" beacuse
"addresses" is plural ?
Regards,
Mohsen.
On 22 Feb, Brian Haberman wrote:
| All,
| This starts a 2-week IPv6 WG Last Call on advancing:
|
| Title : IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
| Author(s) : R. Hinden, S. Deering
| Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-01.txt
| Pages : 25
| Date : 2005-2-18
|
| as a Draft Standard. Substantive comments should be directed to
| the mailing list. Editorial comments can be sent to the document
| editor. This Last Call will end on March 8, 2005.
|
| Regards,
| Bob & Brian
| IPv6 WG co-chairs
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
