Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. The GRASP specification of 4.1.1 should only describe what is required > and valid for the standard of GRASP objective, which is the TCP proxy.
> Appendix C proxy option is not full/formally worked out, thats why
> its in an appendix. If the authors want to propose a formal GRASP
It's not mandatory to implement, which is why it got pushed to the appendix.
If it wasn't worked out, then it would be removed.
> 2. A value of IPPROTO_IPV6 which i guess would be desired for an
> appendix C proxy would IMHO be an extension to whats defined in GRASP.
I think you mean, "defined in the GRASP object defined in CDDL", here.
> An RFC specifying that would therefore have to declare itself to be
> an update of GRASP. I don't think this is a big deal. It would become
I think that you mean, update of BRSKI rather than "update of GRASP".
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
