Revised doc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-05.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I now see:

  5.107 RFC 3084 COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)

  This specification builds on RFC 2748, and is both IPv4
  and IPv6 capable.  The specification defines a sample filter in
  section 4.3, which has "ipv4" in it; however, it's just an example,
  and available to IPv6 as well with a simple replacement of "ipv4"
  with "ipv6".

The last sentence is NOT true. And it is not needed. The fact that
the document just uses an IPv4 sexample is fine. We do not need
top try and explain what needs to be done for an IPv6 or an IP evrsion
neutral example. That is more than what you suggest. I can deal with it
with an RFC-Editor note as follows:

  RFC-EDitor note:

  For document draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-05.txt in sect 5.107,
  please remove an incorrect piece of text:

  OLD:
  section 4.3, which has "ipv4" in it; however, it's just an example,
  and available to IPv6 as well with a simple replacement of "ipv4"
  with "ipv6".
  NEW:
  section 4.3, which has "ipv4" in it.

If this is OK with you, I will act accordingly. Pls do keep an
eye on it during AUTH48 call from RFC-Editor.

I know that you had presented the text to me in an earlier email....
and I should have checked more careful. Sorry about that.

Thanks,
Bert