Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > As I said, I don't really see the issue there. According to > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-grasp-07#section-3.6 the > negotiation (or synchronization) session has its own session-id, > distinct from the one used for discovery, even if they did re-use the > same TCP session. Messages for the two transactions (discovery and > negotiation) could be demultiplexed using the session-id, even if they > overlapped in time for some reason. The ids will never clash, because > the same party initiates discovery and negotiation.
But, can't there be multiple back and forths of M_NEGOTIATE? As such the same session-id would be sent in an M_NEGOTIATE in both directions. If not, then I don't understand negotiation at all. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
