> On 26.3.2015, at 13.19, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 26, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: >> At the very least, I think it's totally fair to subject it to any torture >> tests you have :) > I would suggest that you do interop tests, rather than trying to give him > hints. Markus, did you come up with a list of clarifications for the Babel > document, or did you not find any?
It does interoperate (all TLVs seem to be accepted by both parties). I welcome further tests of course. I made some notes ([1]) that are basically my (implementation POV) notes trying to map the RFC to the code. As a disclaimer, while I have used the main Babel implementation before, and also read the RFC once or twice before (summarily), this is the first time I actually looked really hard at it :) While there are few things that are somewhat vague in the RFC, they did not stop the implementations from interoperating so to some degree I would say the current RFC is in and of itself sufficient. -Markus [1] https://github.com/fingon/pybabel/blob/master/rfc6126-comments.txt _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
