<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Mark Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:radvd@02a76c927861ca7413a122f2a73a0d37.nosense.org">radvd@02a76c927861ca7413a122f2a73a0d37.nosense.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Hi Reuben,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 21:07:23 -0800<br>
Reuben Hawkins <<a href="mailto:reubenhwk@gmail.com">reubenhwk@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Mark Smith <<br>
> <a href="mailto:radvd@02a76c927861ca7413a122f2a73a0d37.nosense.org">radvd@02a76c927861ca7413a122f2a73a0d37.nosense.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Hi,<br>
</div><snip><br>
<div class="im">> ><br>
><br>
><br>
> Hi Mark,<br>
><br>
> Can you verify that this this is for RFC4861 Section 5.5.3? RFC4862<br>
> section 5.5.3. has a "Router Advertisement Processing" and an 'e' section.<br>
> Is this what you meant?<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>Yes, I meant RFC4862, so it's typo in the manual page text. I can fix it<br>
and send through another version of the patch if you like. Are there any<br>
other things that can be improved or should be changed?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<font color="#888888">Mark.<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br>Hi Mark,<br><br>No need to send another patch. I'm going to review it for a little while (the RFC number is easy enough to change manually) before committing it.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Reuben<br>