> >> > >> There was no consensus to include direct response in the base draft. > >> Here's the text of the hum from the notes you point to: > >> > >> -------- > >> First hum: whether or not we include direct routing as an option in > >> the protocol (not worrying about what draft): result was consensus > >> for including it in the protocol. > >> -------- > >> > > > > Right, there was consensus to include it in the base protocol. > > The text inside the parenthesis means there was no consensus where to > put it, to me at least. >
What "protocol" other than RELOAD is being referred to in that statement then? I believe the discussion was about RELOAD, without worrying about whether it will be another draft that will add it to RELOAD or it will be part of the base draft. I was looking for the chairs to confirm the consensus on the list and also ask the question about the document, but I saw none after the meeting. <snip> > > > > I'm not sure what you're referring to. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-base-02#section-5.3.2.4 > doesn't define any forwarding options, it defines a structure that > forwarding options could use, but does not itself define a forwarding > option (i.e. no values for "type" are given meaning). > > Bruce > Sorry, I was referring to the flags defined in that section. I'm confused by them and the draft doesn't seem to describe their purpose. Vidya _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
