[pim] Small question about the proxy draft
YangWoo Ko <newcat@icu.ac.kr> Wed, 09 March 2005 15:19 UTC
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14697 for <pim-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:19:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D92tC-0005Nj-7y; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:14:22 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D92tA-0005Na-L4 for pim@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:14:20 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13930 for <pim@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:14:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sniper.icu.ac.kr ([210.107.128.51]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D92vl-00020e-5U for pim@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:17:03 -0500
Received: (snipe 26939 invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2005 00:16:57 +0900
Received: from newcat@icu.ac.kr with Spamsniper 2.83.29 (Processed in 0.041607 secs);
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.icu.ac.kr) (210.107.128.19) by unknown with SMTP; 10 Mar 2005 00:16:57 +0900
X-RCPTTO: pim@ietf.org
Received: from icu.ac.kr by ietf.org with ESMTP (BeeHive 1.4.1_03) for pim@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:04:28 +0900
Received: from newcat by doggy with local (Exim 4.50) id 1D92tI-0004Rs-6J for pim@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:14:28 +0900
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:14:28 +0900
From: YangWoo Ko <newcat@icu.ac.kr>
To: pim@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20050309151428.GB16898@doggy>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
Subject: [pim] Small question about the proxy draft
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: pim-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pim-bounces@ietf.org
Dear authors of proxy draft, I read the proxy draft (draft-ietf-pim-proxy-00) and found that conflict resolution procedure described in section 2.5 is more or less confusing at least to me. <quote> If a TLV has its own definition for conflict resolution is is preferred over the conflict resolution above. </quote> Does "a TLV" in the above qutation refer to the one that is included in the new Join message or the old message or possibly both? If answer is "both", how can we handle differet definitions for conflict resolution if they are conflicting? Regards -- /*------------------------------------------------ The ones doing their job, doing what they were meant to do, are invisible. -- Matrix Reloaded Ko, YangWoo / Searcher / newcat@icu.ac.kr ------------------------------------------------*/ _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
- [pim] Small question about the proxy draft YangWoo Ko
- Re: [pim] Small question about the proxy draft Arjen Boers