No, it doesn't. I think that you are assuming that the reader is more with you than I'm able to be. Can you break it apart into alternatives which the host might be trying to implement, and completely describe each alternative? Then perhaps we can optimize from there. :)
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:45 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: > Ted > > > > Thank you for your FYI > > > > The text is indeed ambiguous. Your question makes its ambiguity clear. It > should read as “... depend on whether the host wants to share its > connectivity only with PvD-aware hosts.” > > > > Does it sound better? > > > > -éric > > > > *From: *Ted Lemon <[email protected]> > *Date: *Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 15:19 > *To: *Eric Vyncke <[email protected]> > *Cc: *int-area <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [Int-area] Main change in > draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-03: connection sharing > > > > FYI this document is being referenced now by the Homenet Naming > Architecture Document, in the Resolution section. Question: > > The values of the R-bit, Router Advertisement message header and > > Options field depend on whether the connectivity should be shared > > only with PvD aware hosts or not (see Section 3.2 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-03#section-3.2>). > > How does the host sharing connectivity know whether or not it will be > shared only with PvD-aware hosts? >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
