HI Behcet, Thanks for pointing that out. Actually, I think that RFC2983 is the better reference, instead of RFC4213. As RFC2983 is informational, then this would move to being an informative reference (the current wording doesn’t use normative language anyway).
Would that work? Cheers, Ian On 24 Sep 2014, at 22:46, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I noticed that RFC 4213 is referenced in both Section 5.2 and 6.2 regarding: > Covering tunneling and traffic class mapping between IPv4 and IPv6 > > I am curious as to why RFC 4213 which only deals with tunneling IPv6 > packets in IPv4 would be relevant to lw4o6? > > Regards, > > Behcet > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
