On 03/11/2017 16:00, William Atwood wrote: ... > 6) In Section 6.10.3 and Section 6.10.3.1, the phrases "zone", "Zone > ID", "zone-ID", and "Zone-ID" are used interchangeably. This is > ambiguous. Since almost all of the discussion is about the "Zone-ID" > field, the two sections should be reviewed carefully, with the goal of > using a single phrase throughout these two sections. If "zone", Zone > ID, "zone-ID", or "Zone-ID" is used elsewhere in the document, it should > be examined. When discussing the concept of a zone, "zone" should be > used; when discussing the Zone-ID field, "Zone-ID" should be used.
This is particularly important since "zone" and "zone index" and "zone_id" are used in a completely different sense in RFC 4007 and other RFCs that depend on RFC 4007. In fact, it might be worth a note that this is different from that. I commented elsewhere that the ACP adjacency table needs to include the interface index for link-local addresses**, and that is in fact exactly what RFC 4007 calls the "zone index". So unless we make this excessively clear, we can be certain that some readers will get the two things mixed up. ** How you determine the interface index is o/s dependent, so it's important to put this in the adjacency table, for maximum portability of code. Brian _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
