Fred, Ok, thanks, I've made the change.
Hesham > -----Original Message----- > From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 5:00 AM > To: Hesham Soliman; Ralph Droms; Thomas Narten > Cc: [email protected]; Brian Haberman; Erik Nordmark; Bob > Hinden; William Allen Simpson > Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt > > Hesham, > > Regarding the new sentence under the 'L' bit definition: > > > In > > other words, if the L flag is not set a > host MUST > > NOT assume that an addresse derived from > the prefix > > is on-link unless it is explicitly told > in another > > message (e.g. Redirect). > > the on-link property of an address need not be due to a > message, e.g., it could be due to manual config. Suggest > rewriting as: > > "In other words, if the L flag is not set a host MUST NOT > assume that an address derived from the prefix is on-link > unless it is explicitly told through some other means > (e.g. Redirect)." > > Fred > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
