Is anyone aware of interop issues or implementation errors likely caused by this?
Thanks! Ben. > On Oct 16, 2018, at 2:24 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear all, > >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> P SHOULD then send a Ping for its own Resource-ID n+1 routed through B. > > this should rather read: > > P SHOULD then send a Ping for Resource-ID n+1 routed through B, where n > is P's own Node-ID. > > IMHO "own Resource-ID n+1" is a bit confusing, because P is not the > responsible peer for n+1. What is meant is (own Resource-ID n)+1, but > that is hard to get from the text. > > Regards > Roland
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
