Suresh - The addresses you are pointing to are not generic example addresses, they are "inside NAT example addresses". At one point in the draft's history they changed to use 5735 addresses, but the reviewers objected, feeling that using 1918 addresses were more sensible for these examples.
RjS On Mar 30, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Resending due to a tools alias failure (that has been fixed now) > > Thanks > Suresh > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Suresh Krishnan > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:50 PM > To: General Area Review Team; > [email protected] > Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of > draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-15 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for > draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-15 > > For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may > receive. > > Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC > but it has an issue that probably needs to be fixed before publication. > > Minor > ===== > > * The draft uses addresses from the RFC1918 space in the examples instead of > using the addresses reserved for documentation in RFC 5735 (i.e. > 192.0.2.0/24, 198.51.100.0/24, and 203.0.113.0/24). It would be good if this > can be fixed in the draft. > > Thanks > Suresh > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
