Re: [L2tpext] Why 2 AVPs?

Probably two attributes, as RFC 2868 covers both tunnel and session
level attributes, isn't it?

---Wei

Glen Zorn wrote:
> 
> Wei Luo [mailto://luo@cisco.com] writes:
> 
> > At one point, people wanted to have the session DS AVP carried in
> > control channel messages as well to indicate the specified DS value
> > should be applied to all sessions of the same control channel.  Whereas,
> > the control connection DS AVP is solely for the control channel.
> > Therefore, there was a need to differentiate the two.  That idea didn't
> > fly too long however, but we left them as they are for clarity purpose.
> 
> OK.  The reason I'm asking is that I'm working on an update to RFC 2868 that
> includes a DS-related attribute, so the question is, should there be 1
> attribute or 2?
> 
> >
> > ---Wei
> >
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: [L2tpext] Why 2 AVPs?
> > > Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 23:03:28 -0700
> > > From: "Glen Zorn" <gwz@cisco.com>
> > > Reply-To: <gwz@cisco.com>
> > > To: <l2tpext@ietf.org>
> > >
> > > Just looking at draft-ietf-l2tpext-ds-05.txt and wondering why
> > there are two
> > > identical AVPs defined, since the only differences between them
> > seem to be
> > > semantic & they occur is disjunct sets of messages...
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > L2tpext mailing list
> > > L2tpext@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > L2tpext mailing list
> > L2tpext@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> L2tpext mailing list
> L2tpext@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext

_______________________________________________
L2tpext mailing list
L2tpext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext