RE: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Mon, 28 March 2011 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923DC28C106 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.663
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tq6+9rnkr8R8 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2235D28C107 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; l=872; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1301330400; x=1302540000; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=Do0LIGYZDeYL8datTDx10PbdgJe1Kt//7xWFw9NAJl4=; b=Md5MNFJtHBdoq0EvgI2QK0OEbtQ73pDRnCZNv6ST9GhJwvV+yiZVUhl9 y87EWd8hyVv5rdXt1BdS8mLV47ioWrBa0kBMOlXJveK88WQefALjoJRZk WD5F90Psk85yi5VGEBaIIQwf/7hN7Z+CmVst06461f5XYlZRZZPfhVVGG U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgYBALS5kE2tJXG9/2dsb2JhbACYBY1Ad6cDnAeFaQSFOosX
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,256,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="284193183"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2011 16:39:52 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com [72.163.62.200]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2SGdq4i020704; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:39:52 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-109.cisco.com ([72.163.62.151]) by xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:39:52 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:39:53 -0500
Message-ID: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30121E76C@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103281755550.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3
Thread-Index: AcvtYXb4nI2FoMMUTcmhYEU3dQCrtAABChtg
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103281015240.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30121E5C1@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103281501150.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30121E663@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103281755550.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2011 16:39:52.0642 (UTC) FILETIME=[C321F220:01CBED66]
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:38:23 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se] 
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02
section 2.3


>Anyhow, the above text seems fine to me from a technical point of view,

>nothing pops up as weird or wrong anyway. I think it needs a second
look 
>over before it's ready for publishing?

Ah, the text I wrote is in conversational language and I don't deem the
text for use in an RFC.  However, if the WG thinks such text needs
addition to this document, I'd be happy to provide more tighter text.
For example, change mac-addr to link-layer address and the fact that if
the link layer supports addresses, it is the IPv6 ND Source Link-Layer
Address option that carries the link-layer address.

Hemant