Eric,
Since there are no IANA considerations, where is the Keep-Alive
message type defined?
See below- already fixed in the tracker!
Brian
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection (Failure Detection and Locator Pair Exploration Protocol for IPv6
Multihoming) to Proposed Standard
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:14:29 +0200
From: Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: IESG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Geoff Huston
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yes. Thanks.
Mark, can you place this to the RFC Editor notes window
in the tracker:
Please change the contents of Section 9 as follows:
OLD:
No IANA actions are required.
NEW:
The relevant Shim6 message types and their registries are
defined in [draft-ietf-shim6-proto]. This document has no
additional IANA considerations.
Jari
Brian E Carpenter kirjoitti:
> Minor editorial:
>
> I think the IANA Considerations should state that the
> relevant shim6 message types and their registry are
> defined in draft-ietf-shim6-proto.
>
> Brian
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
