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

Brian,
> 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.
Sure. Whatever works.

Thanks and regards, Benoit
>
>     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
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> .
>