RE: [L2tpext] Why 2 AVPs?

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