Hi Stig,
On 11/28/2011 12:59 PM, Stig Venaas wrote: >> Please note that the Connection ID AFI in the PORT Hello Option does not >> need to match the address family of PIM Hello message that carries it. >> e.g. an IPv6 PIM Hello message could contain a PORT Hello Option with a >> TCP Connection ID AFI of 1 (IPv4). > > While I am OK with this text, wouldn't it be better to add this to 3.1 > and 3.2 where we formally define the hello options? > > My proposal would be: > > End of 3.1: > > OLD: > TCP Connection ID AFI: The AFI value to describe the address-family > of the address of the TCP Connection ID field. When this field is > 0, a mechanism outside the scope of this document is used to > obtain the addresses used to establish the TCP connection. > > NEW: > TCP Connection ID AFI: The AFI value to describe the address-family > of the address of the TCP Connection ID field. Note that this > value does not need to match the address-family of the PIM Hello > message that carries it. When this field is 0, a mechanism > outside the scope of this document is used to obtain the > addresses used to establish the TCP connection. > > End of 3.2: > > OLD: > SCTP Connection ID AFI: The AFI value to describe the address- > family of the address of the SCTP Connection ID field. When this > field is 0, a mechanism outside the scope of this document is used > to obtain the addresses used to establish the SCTP connection. > > NEW: > SCTP Connection ID AFI: The AFI value to describe the address- > family of the address of the SCTP Connection ID field. Note that > this value does not need to match the address-family of the PIM > Hello message that carries it. When this field is 0, a mechanism > outside the scope of this document is used to obtain the > addresses used to establish the SCTP connection. > > What do you think? This works great. Thanks Suresh _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
