Re: Comments on draft-katz-yeung-traffic-08.txt

[Don Goodspeed <[e-mail]>]

With these changes, I have no further issues.  Looks good!.
-don

 --- On Wed 10/23, Acee Lindem  wrote:
From: Acee Lindem [mailto: [e-mail]]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:22:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-katz-yeung-traffic-08.txt

> Sounds good to me.
>
> Kireeti Kompella wrote:
>
> > Hi Acee,
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Acee Lindem wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I don't expect to have any comments on IETF wide last call.
> >>
> >
> > Can I hold you to that?  :-)
> >
> >
> >>>This is a nitpick.
> >>>
> >>Have you ever met a programmer who didn't?
> >>
> >
> > None that I respect :-)
> >
> >
> >>I was just thinking that a document going to proposed standard
> would
> >>be better served with a single way of handling multi-access links.
> If
> >>I'm the only one with this concern then I'll relent.
> >>
> >
> > It wouldn't be better served changing something *that works and
> > interoperates* at the last minute.
> >
> > New wording (the part after the semicolon is new):
> >
> > | If the Link Type of the link is Multiaccess, the Remote
> > | Interface IP Addess is set to 0.0.0.0; alternatively, an
> implementation
> > | MAY choose not to send this sub-TLV.
> >
> >
> >>>However, if you think that the new wording is preferable, I
> will
> >>>change this to "Operation over multiaccess links with
> more than two
> >>>devices is not specifically prohibited.  More accurate
> description of
> >>>the reservation state of multi-access networks is for further
> study."
> >>>
> >>
> >>There was considerable discussion on this topic and I believe
> >>this a good addition.
> >>
> >
> > Done.  New wording:
> >
> > | The reservation state of multiaccess
> > | links may not be accurately reflected, except in the special case
> that
> > | there are only two devices in the multiaccess subnetwork.
> Operation
> > | over multiaccess networks with more than two devices is not
> specifically
> > | prohibited.  More accurate description of the reservation state of
> > | multi-access networks is for further study.
> >
> > Note one other minor change: "reservation state ... is not
> ..." to
> > "reservation state ... may not be ..."
> >
> > Can we ship this out now?
> >
> > Kireeti.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Acee
>

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!