Martijn van Beurden wrote:
> This seems like a tooling issue.
Since the PDF is produced from the HTML using a tool that may well have a
bug, which maybe we won't be able to get fixed quickly...
could we just proceed with a note that the PDF has this error, and once the
error can be fixed, t
Hi, Wei and I have coordinated this response!
In reviewing the diff, I see:
>3.1. Non-Deterministic Mappings
>
> Most importantly, the mapping of the DNS names to IP addresses should
> be non-deterministic.
The original text said "may be non-deterministic". Changing this to should is
confu
Sarah Tarrant wrote:
> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly.
> We have a few followup questions/comments:
> A) Regarding:
>>> 4)
>>
>> RFC8520 says "These devices, which this memo refers to as Things, have a
>> specific purpose."
>>
Sarah Tarrant wrote:
> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly and
> have no further questions.
I have read the auth48 diff, and I approve all the changes.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE
Sandy Ginoza wrote:
> We note that this document does not contain an IANA Considerations
> section. Please note that we have added a section per IANA’s guidance
> in RFC 8126 (see
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html#section-9.1).
Oops. Thank you for adding it.
read the
