Hi Ian, On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Ian Farrer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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).
Yes, I agree, the tunnel part of RFC 2983 is better. No offense to Erik. Regards, Behcet > > 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
