Re: [Softwires] lw4o6 question
Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com> Wed, 01 October 2014 09:33 UTC
Return-Path: <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F951ACD88 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 02:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iMcwNcH1qKN7 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 02:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EF6B1ACD87 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 02:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ians-mbp.lan ([62.225.30.139]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MIhDo-1XX3Lw1Z28-002Hil; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 11:33:00 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcdtsmG=cYqpTt-spTrvCLFWLFi7EYRzgRt7MjNZaTNfMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 11:32:58 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DA6D7597-362F-4DD8-AD5F-6C1B31ACD805@gmx.com>
References: <CAC8QAcdtsmG=cYqpTt-spTrvCLFWLFi7EYRzgRt7MjNZaTNfMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: sarikaya@ieee.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:aAlbnZRpx+2DvkolLvL5H72BfUVWmKsFlfwWueZ03XJr+N3cQ9M ucJ813cJli2dfgusZ8R+qZcB2ttrQxT1E3J1mmXjVxI2aVaYZJ64+JaK67BtFQjxn7ClrJz ewzHiZJi/Q36DxezjvLYtP7Tut4V55VouIkTVZJMH0wTvAk8r/4HcLfLtdbuPlUNSrxIUAN 6wTD4SGim/Qzmo3i/E0yg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/PjqrbPa9Z7kW6mc8I8IaqtAxb5g
Cc: Softwires-wg <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] lw4o6 question
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:33:04 -0000
HI Behcet, Thanks for pointing that out. Actually, I think that RFC2983 is the better reference, instead of RFC4213. As RFC2983 is informational, then this would move to being an informative reference (the current wording doesn’t use normative language anyway). Would that work? Cheers, Ian On 24 Sep 2014, at 22:46, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I noticed that RFC 4213 is referenced in both Section 5.2 and 6.2 regarding: > Covering tunneling and traffic class mapping between IPv4 and IPv6 > > I am curious as to why RFC 4213 which only deals with tunneling IPv6 > packets in IPv4 would be relevant to lw4o6? > > Regards, > > Behcet > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
- [Softwires] lw4o6 question Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Softwires] lw4o6 question Ian Farrer
- Re: [Softwires] lw4o6 question Behcet Sarikaya