Bob,
The changes look good to me.
One thing I noticed while reading this text (and this issue actually
was in previous versions):
> +-+-+-+-+
> flgs is a set of 4 flags: |0|R|P|T|
> +-+-+-+-+
> The high-order flag is reserved, and must be initialized to 0.
Because the high-order flag is reserved, its contents should be
ignored by all implementations. So "must be initialized to 0" is
perhaps better just dropped, to prevent an implementer from thinking
they need to (somehow) verify/check this. Maybe change to:
The high-order flag is reserved, and its value should be
ignored on receipt (other than being considered part of the
address when performing address comparisons).
(Maybe the last part is too long/complicated/obvious, in which case
just dropping it might be better.)
I'm also fine with not adding any additional text to the IANA
considerations regarding the unicast/multicast instructions.
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
