IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-00

Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> Thu, 11 May 2017 11:24 UTC

Return-Path: <tore@fud.no>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B9912EBD6; Thu, 11 May 2017 04:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 47yhldYiOAMf; Thu, 11 May 2017 04:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.fud.no (mail.fud.no [IPv6:2a02:c0:4f0:bb02:f816:3eff:fed3:8342]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E29B4129789; Thu, 11 May 2017 04:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2a02:c0:2:1:1194:17:0:1029] (port=53752 helo=echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com) by mail.fud.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <tore@fud.no>) id 1d8mAM-0004oD-Hi; Thu, 11 May 2017 11:21:54 +0000
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 13:21:53 +0200
From: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Cc: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix.all@ietf.org, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170511132153.269fd1d7@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau0dVSL7cAZs2YWHpeU8rpU76bn00-7XiS2Rj+eOAOCS4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <149373185172.9923.9255526962045750289@ietfa.amsl.com> <7789CECA-165C-417F-B485-03A154327AC1@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0dVSL7cAZs2YWHpeU8rpU76bn00-7XiS2Rj+eOAOCS4A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ZESi24rB2pMjbIrT-T_ivFDlJcE>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-00
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:24:08 -0000

Hi David,

> Prompted by this review, I reread the document and found what I think are a
> couple additional typos.
> 
> Section 4.2, Prefix Value, compares two options: 64:ff9a:ffff:ffff::/48 and
> 64:ff9b:1::/48. However in the fifth paragraph of the section, I believe
> there are two errant references to 64:ff9b:1::/96, that should instead
> be 64:ff9b:1::/48,
> unless I'm misunderstanding the intent of the paragraph.

You're absolutely right. Fixed. Thank you!

Tore

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email