Hi Jen, Thanks for your quick update. It looks good! For me, this document is ready. Regards David -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Jen Linkova <furry13@xxxxxxxxx> 发送时间: Monday, August 4, 2025 9:04 AM 收件人: Zhe Lou <zhe.lou@xxxxxxxxxx> 抄送: int-dir@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-v6ops-prefer8781.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; v6ops@xxxxxxxx 主题: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-prefer8781-06 telechat Intdir review 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
