Hi all,
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:50 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > We submitted an updated version to resolve one open issue for the draft. The > main changes are: > > * Remove a normative reference > * Add a new section to describe how address translation is done. > * Updated the examples to make use of the IPv6 address block defined in > RFC6676. > > A detailed diff is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04. > > As suggested by Stig, a message was sent to mboned ML > (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned/current/msg01725.html). > > We believe this version solves the technical comments raised during WGLC and > also against -03. > > There was a request from Behcet to add some normative references to the draft > but this was not accepted (see the mailing list archives). > I don't remember what this refers to. But I do remember that this draft does not consider a very significant case: IPv6 network may not be multicast enabled. If this issue is resolved (it could be resolved by accepting another solution, because more than one solution may be accepted for a given problem/charter item) then my issues with this draft will be resolved. Regards, Behcet _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
