On Monday, December 1, 2014, Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > After looking at the responses on the mailing list, we find that > there is consensus to change MAP-T into a Standards Track document. > However, there was an issue raised regarding preservation of DF=1 and > MF=1 and this warranted inclusion of some advisory text in the draft. > The following text has been added (Thanks Rémi and Tom) in section 10 of > version -07. > > "Note: The NAT64 [RFC6145] mechanism is not entirely losseless and when Would this be better without the double negative ? This is a technical document and benefits from being as clear as possible. Please remove the weasel words. This is not marketing or politics. CB > applied to IPv4 communication paths that traverse double NAT64 networks, > IPv4 originated ICMP-independent PathMTU Discovery as specified in > [RFC4821], ceases to be entirely reliable. This is because the[RFC4821] > defined DF=1/MF=1 combination, after NAT64 translation, becomes > DF=0/MF=1." > > Authors, Please resubmit a new version (-08) on Standards Track. > > Thanks > Suresh & Yong > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
