Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03.txt

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

Sorry for the delayed response, I've been effectively offline for a
while.

At Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:59:41 +0100,
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> >This point in my original comment doesn't seem to be fully addressed:
> >
> >- In the NEW format of Section 4.2, this sentence may need to be
> >  revisited:
> >
> >      In this case, the last 4
> >      bits of the previously reserved field are interpreted as embedding
> >      the RP interface ID, as specified in this memo.
> >
> >In 03, the corresponding part is
> >
> >   [..] When the
> >   R-bit is set, the last 4 bits of the previously reserved field are
> >   interpreted as embedding the RP interface ID, as specified in this memo.
> >
> >but it doesn't address my concern since the point is "the previously
> >reserved" can be ambiguous.
>
> [Med] But that sentence is almost the same as in RFC3956:
>
> "...the last 4
>    bits of the previously reserved field are interpreted as embedding
>    the RP interface ID, as specified in this memo. "
>
> That text should be interpreted in the context of RFC3956.

I'm not sure if I understand your logic here, but is there any problem
with my suggested text?

      In this case, the last 4 bits of the field that were reserved in
      [RFC3306] are interpreted as embedding the RP interface ID, as
      specified in this memo.

I believe it's still in the context of RFC3956 (RFC3306 was published
before RFC3956, and the original RFC3956 actually refers to RFC3306
already), and yet addresses my point.  This is relatively a minor
point, and I'm not insisting on adopting the suggestion, but I simply
don't see the reason for not doing so.

> >I also noticed this (weak) suggestion wasn't adopted:
> >
> >: Ah, okay.  Maybe it's a distraction, but I'd consider adding a
> >: "TERMINOLOGY" section or something, where we clarify the point (i.e.,
> >: the draft generally follows RFC 5952 to represent IPv6 addresses
> >: except in citation of already published documents).  But I'd leave it
> >: to you.
> >
> >If ignoring it was your intent, that's fine.  I'm pointing it out just
> >in case it's overlooked.
> [Med] This comment was included: see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03#section-1
>
>    Textual representation of IPv6 addresses included in the RFC updates
>    follows the recommendation in [RFC5952].

Ah, okay, I missed that part.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya