[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-security-02.txt

To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-security-02.txt
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 08:56:06 +0100
In-reply-to: <40BE4C05.2010607@iprg.nokia.com>
Mail-followup-to: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406021337280.6229-100000@netcore.fi> <20040602160800.GE7083@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <40BE4C05.2010607@iprg.nokia.com>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

Another comment:

The example in 6.1 cites compatible addresses.   While these are in use,
they are being deprecated in draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-02, so I suggest
the example is reworked a little and that the reference is to the new
draft and not RFC2893 (reference [4]).

Tim

Follow-Ups:
- Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-security-02.txt
  - From: Fred Templin <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com>

References:
- WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-security-02.txt
  - From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
- Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-security-02.txt
  - From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

Prev by Date: Agenda items for IETF60
Next by Date: New changes
Previous by thread: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-security-02.txt
Next by thread: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-security-02.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread