> It MUST be set to 0 if the router is not capable of doing FOO,
> otherwise it SHOULD be set to 4 but MAY be set to any value from 1 to
> 7 to indicate a non-default priority. The values 8-15 are reserved
> for future use.
Steven, shouldn't it say explicitly what a node does when it receives
a
On 20.11.2015, at 12.07, Steven Barth wrote:
>> -- Section 13 --
>> I have two concerns with how the HNCP TLV Types registry is specified:
>>
>> 1. Because the DNCP TLV Types registry specifically allocates 32-511 for
>> profiles, it'd be better to simply limit the range of
Hello Barry,
thanks for your review.
On 19.11.2015 06:42, Barry Leiba wrote:
> --
> DISCUSS:
> --
>
> I have two points that I'd like to discuss, both of which
>>> -- Section 13 --
>>> I have two concerns with how the HNCP TLV Types registry is specified:
>>>
>>> 1. Because the DNCP TLV Types registry specifically allocates 32-511 for
>>> profiles, it'd be better to simply limit the range of values in this
>>> registry to those values, rather than making
On 20.11.2015, at 17.50, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I can still be convinced that this is the way to go, but I haven't
> been yet, so let's please talk about it a bit more.
>
> I see your point about the possibility that future DNCP updates could
> change the registry, though
Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to