> On Jul 1, 2019, at 11:11 PM, Jen Linkova <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 7:04 PM Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker > <[email protected]> wrote: >> * Section 3.3 Paragraph 2 >> >> The destination address of H41 seems to be wrong. Shouldn't it be >> "D=2001:db8:0:b020::41" instead of "D=2001:db8:0:b010::41"? > > Awesome, good catch, thanks a lot! It's a typo indeed, fixed! > >> >> * Section 4 Page 22 >> >> I think this text needs to be rephrased as a requirement rather than a two >> statements. >> >> "Any traffic that needs to exit the site will eventually hit a SADR- >> capable router. Once that traffic enters the SADR-capable domain, >> then it will not leave that domain until it exits the site." > > I've rephrased as > > "As all SERs belong to the SADR domain any traffic that needs to exit > > the site will eventually hit a SADR-capable router. To prevent > routing loops involving SADR-capable and non-SADR-capable routers, > traffic that enters the SADR-capable domain does not leave the domain > until it exits the site. Therefore all SADR-capable routers with the > domain MUST be logically connected." > > Is it better? > >> * Section 5.2.1. >> >> Not sure what the reference to RFC8415 accomplishes in this contact. Is it >> just >> a pointer to DHCPv6? If so it needs to be earlier in the document. If there >> is >> a more relevant reason, I think the pointer needs to be more specific (e.g. a >> section in RFC8415). > > I've moved RFC8415 reference to the first mention of DHCPv6 in the doc. > >> >> * Section 7.3 >> >> I think a reference to something like RFC6824 might be useful here > > Added.
Excellent Jen. All these text changes look good. Thanks for addressing my concerns. Regards Suresh _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
