Re: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-ug-06: (with COMMENT)

Benoit,

On 14/12/2013 04:05, Benoit Claise wrote:
...
> When you wrote about the "u/l" bit:
> 
>       In an IID, this bit is in position 6, i.e., position 70 in the
>       complete IPv6 address.
> 
> You actually mean the 7th position because you start counting at 0. I
> guess that you have RFC 4291 appendix. A in mind:

Well yes, that's why we wrote "position 6" instead of "6th position".
But you are correct, it would be clearer to insert "counting from 0".
If there are no other major changes, we can do this as a note to
the RFC Editor.

   Brian

> 
>    |0              1|1              3|3              4|4              6|
>    |0              5|6              1|2              7|8              3|
>    +----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
>    |cccccc1gcccccccc|cccccccc11111111|11111110mmmmmmmm|mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm|
>    +----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
> 
> 
> Without knowing that you start counting at 0, this is a mistake.
> Proposal (but feel free to develop your own text):
> 
>       In an IID, this bit is in the seventh from the left, i.e., position
> 70 in the
>       complete IPv6 address, when starting counting at zero like in the
> figures in RFC 4291 appendix A.
> 
> Same remark for the "i/g" bit:
> 
>       In an IID, this bit is in position 7, i.e., position 71 in the
>       complete IPv6 address.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 