Re: [Pppext] Review of draft-bberry-rfc4938bis-00.txt
Frank Solensky <fsolensky@juniper.net> Mon, 08 June 2009 19:32 UTC
Return-Path: <fsolensky@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: pppext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pppext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 9F9673A6991 for <pppext@core3.amsl.com>;
Mon, 8 Jun 2009 12:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mK2qo7X-Z2II for
<pppext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 12:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og102.obsmtp.com (exprod7og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.157])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D4D3A682D for <pppext@ietf.org>;
Mon, 8 Jun 2009 12:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by
exprod7ob102.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID
DSNKSi1nSY/37j8LJIDsHR7b+iyg0kYGV2e5@postini.com;
Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:32:29 PDT
Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net
(172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.375.2;
Mon, 8 Jun 2009 12:27:15 -0700
Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by
p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi;
Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:27:14 -0400
From: Frank Solensky <fsolensky@juniper.net>
To: Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>, "pppext@ietf.org" <pppext@ietf.org>,
"draft-bberry-rfc4938bis@tools.ietf.org"
<draft-bberry-rfc4938bis@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:27:13 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Pppext] Review of draft-bberry-rfc4938bis-00.txt
Thread-Index: AclF2DSEDr+LkjljR2m1baxNbV2MtiilTPLg
Message-ID: <48A3702B6745EC48BA1F7EBE2184707496C3FF9B78@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
References: <491C9E43.3090406@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <491C9E43.3090406@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "michael.d.adams@l-3.com" <michael.d.adams@l-3.com>,
"bberry@cisco.com" <bberry@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Pppext] Review of draft-bberry-rfc4938bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PPP Extensions <pppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>,
<mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pppext>
List-Post: <mailto:pppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>,
<mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:32:24 -0000
Sorry for the last message but it just came to my attention that there's one aspect of the draft that should be made more clear. The way I read the draft and its predecessor, the support for PADG/C messages and PADQ messages are orthogonal to each other. That is, if the exchange of PADR/S messages when the session is first established does not include the Credit and Credit Scale TLVs indicating PADG/C support, each side can still send PADQs. Is this a correct interpretation? Either way: should this be explicitly called out?
- [Pppext] Review of draft-bberry-rfc4938bis-00.txt Mark Townsley
- Re: [Pppext] Review of draft-bberry-rfc4938bis-00… Frank Solensky
- Re: [Pppext] Review of draft-bberry-rfc4938bis-00… Frank Solensky