Re: [BEHAVE] I-D Action:draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-03.txt

["HUANG, JERRY (ATTLABS)" <jhuang1 at att.com>]

-----Original Message-----
>From: Xing Li [mailto:xing at cernet.edu.cn] 
>Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 8:30 AM
>>   There is another comment here. I could not find any definition or
>> references for "IPv6-mapped addresses" in the above paragraph (and
the
>> original paragraph in RFC 2765). It appears that it is simply a typo
in
>> the original RFC text that was copied over. Should that have been
>> "IPv4-mapped addresses" instead (here as well as in RFC 2765)? It
seems
>> to fit the context.
>>   
>The IPv4-mapped addresses is define in RFC5156, we will add the 
>reference. The other address types (IPv4-converted and
IPv4-translatable 
>addresses) are defined in draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework.

My point was that the relevant text (both in the draft and in RFC 2765)
uses "IPv6-mapped addresses" 
(not "IPv4-mapped addresses") in that one place. "IPv4-mapped" is well
understood.  I was wondering
whether that was just a typo in both documents. Perhaps both should have
been "IPv4-mapped addresses".

Jerry Huang