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

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:59:02 +0100,
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> This new version integrates the comments received during the WGLC. The changes are mainly editorial.
>
> Jouni/Tatuya can you please double check the new version and let us know if the modifs solve your concerns? Thank you in advance.

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.

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.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya