Hi Suresh, ππΌπ
Please see inline. > On May 4, 2016, at 10:42 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-05: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Section 5.1, 6.1: > > The IPv4-mapped IPv6 prefix for the IPv4 loopback range 127.0.0.0/8 is > incorrect. > > It is currently written as 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104. It should instead be > 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104. > OK β in this case, a number of Errata items should be both corrected and new ones filed. E.g.: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4379&eid=1418 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4379&eid=1418> > Sections 5.1, 6.1: > > The document just talks about the TTL field being set to 255. It does not > talk about the Hop Limit field for IPv6. I would assume you want to do > the same for IPv6 packets as for the IPv4 packets. Can you include the > Hop Limit as well if you want the same behavior for IPv6. I have two > suggested forms of changes. Pick whatever works better for you. > > OLD: > > TTL field of the IP header SHOULD be set to 255 > > NEW: > > The TTL/Hop Limit field of the IP header SHOULD be set to 255 > Yes, I prefer this one. Thanks! β Carlos. > (or) > > The TTL field of the IPv4 header or the Hop Limit field of the IPv6 > header SHOULD be set to 255 > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
