Hi David, Thank you for the review, you made a very good point. We have updated the text as follows: https://github.com/buraglio/draft-nbtjjl-v6ops-prefer8781/pull/38/files The change will be integrated into the next revision. Pls let me know if the updated text doesn't address your comment. On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 1:15 AM David Lou via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-prefer8781 > Title: Recommendations for Discovering IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address > Synthesis Reviewer: David Lou Review result: Ready with Nits > > Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-prefer8781 > Title: Recommendations for Discovering IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address > Synthesis > Reviewer: David Lou > > This draft makes a recommendation to use RFC8781 instead of RFC7050 for PREF64 > discovery. It's well written with clear arguments. A minor suggestion: > > Section 4 illustrates the existing issues of RFC7050. And some text here and > there in the draft indicate the advantages of RFC8781. For instance, Section 1 > states "This approach offers several advantages (Section 3 of [RFC8781]), > including fate sharing with other host network configuration parameters." > Section 4.5 states that RAs have defense mechanism. I wonder whether it would > be better to have a couple of sentences explicitly stating that the RFC8781 > mechanism tackles/solves those issues. It can be put either in section 1 or at > the end of section 4. > > Regards > David > > -- Cheers, Jen Linkova -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
