Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

At 11:47 PM 4/22/2008, Jeff W. Boote wrote:
>Al Morton wrote:
>>At 06:22 PM 4/22/2008, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote:
>>>If the original TWAMP draft had a clear path for extension I would have
>>>no problems with the above statement.
>>There are two clear extension mechanisms, the Mode field
>>(like in OWAMP), and the Control Command Number (TWAMP-only).
>>
>>>  As it stands now there is no
>>>version number and hence there is no way to judge capabilities in a
>>>mixed environment.
>>We might be able to use some bits that are currently MBZ for this.
>>Does anyone else see a strong need for an explicit version number?
>
>No. I guess it would not be unreasonable to make the extension 
>mechanism more clear in the draft however - perhaps an example? I 
>did think about doing this to the owamp draft - but no one had issue 
>with it so it did not seem needed. (To be clear, I believe the 
>mechanism itself is adequate.)
>
>jeff

The TWAMP-Control Command Number for Request-TW-Session (the new name)
is itself an example of extension over the OWAMP numbers, and
draft-morton-more-twamp-00.txt is an example of the Modes field extension.

It makes sense to highlight the recognized extension mechanisms in the
(new) Protocol Overview section, so that's what I'll attempt.

Al




_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm