On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 05:53:32PM -0800, IETF I-D Submission Tool wrote: > Filename: draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option > Revision: 02
>From -01 there are a few minor grammar and spelling nits, the ASCII art is slightly reformed to be more visually in line with RFC 3315 convention, and I've omitted a useless "hierarchy" section that had all of one sentence in it other than its subsections. So, just editorial stuff from what Tomasz already did in -01. Outside of that, I did want to address one more thing from Paul; On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 10:44:08PM +0000, Paul Selkirk wrote: > This could be interpreted as a recommendation to use the FQDN option > instead of the Address option. Perhaps something like: > For the sake of simplicity, this option conveys a single IPv6 > address. If you want to convey multiple IPv6 addresses, you should > instead use the Dual-Stack Lite Name option, where the DNS name > could resolve to multiple addresses. I've updated this bit a little differently; This option conveys a single IPv6 address, as the Dual-Stack Lite specification [I-D.softwire-ds-lite-03] defines only one Softwire connection between a B4 and any AFTR. Multiple connections or endpoints are undefined. For more information, see Section 7.2 "High Availability" of [I-D.softwire-ds-lite-03]. I hope this is reasonable. Mainly I'm trying to avoid a language that seems permissible of multiple addresses in either form. This particular paragraph has had a rough time adjusting from initial discussion formats to the present day. :) Quick link to the draft; https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option/ -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
