Hi, Alan, "IPv6-6rd-Configuration" sounds good for us. We will use it in the next version.
Thanks and best regards, Sheng > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan DeKok [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 6:29 PM > To: Sheng Jiang > Cc: 'Bernard Aboba'; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Reviewing is needed, FW: New Version > Notification for draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-00 > > Sheng Jiang wrote: > > Thanks so much for your valuable comments. Most of them are > addressed > > in the next version. A couple of explanation is below. > > > > We rename the attribute "6rd-Configuration". 6rd is a term > for "IPv6 rapid deployment mechanism". > > It cannot be replaced by other name. > > That makes no sense. The name has *no* impact on the > protocol. It could be named "XYZ-Foo", and still have the > same functionality. > > The name *does* have impact on administrators of RADIUS > systems, and implementors of RADIUS specifications. Using a > name that follows existing RADIUS naming practices is a good > idea. The above name does > *not* follow existing RADIUS naming practices. > > Again, using a name such as "IPv6-RD-Configuration", or > "IPv6-6rd-Configuration" *would* follow existing RADIUS > naming practices, with no loss of functionality or clarity. > > > We have edited the length description like below, hope it is ok. > > > > "20 + n*4 (the length of the entire attribute in octets; n > stands the > > number of BR IPv4 addresses, minimum n is 1)." > > That's fine. > > Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
