Re: [pim] Small question about the proxy draft

"Arjen Boers" <aboers@cisco.com> Wed, 09 March 2005 17:03 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 MAA25846 for <pim-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:03:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D94Yr-0003LA-9E; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:01:29 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D94Yo-0003Kk-W5 for pim@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:01:27 -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 MAA25542 for <pim@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:01:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D94bR-0004pG-26 for pim@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:04:10 -0500
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Mar 2005 09:15:28 -0800
Received: from mira-sjc5-d.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-d.cisco.com [171.71.163.28]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j29H18qA024751; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:01:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ABOERSXP (sjc-vpn1-385.cisco.com [10.21.97.129]) by mira-sjc5-d.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with SMTP id AIK71058; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:01:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <011b01c524c9$7f7dbb60$5a848182@ABOERSXP>
From: Arjen Boers <aboers@cisco.com>
To: YangWoo Ko <newcat@icu.ac.kr>, pim@ietf.org
References: <20050309151428.GB16898@doggy>
Subject: Re: [pim] Small question about the proxy draft
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:59:48 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

YangWoo,

It is intended that the conflict resolution only applies to 
TLVs of the same type. We will clarify this in future revisions
along with a lot of other comments we have received.

Regards,
Arjen.

> 
> 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 mailing list
pim@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim