Hi Gorry, See inline. Stuff I have no comment on has been snipped. Tom P. > Section 2.1: > Why are you suggesting that the ephemeral ports should include > 1024-49151? So going back to above, that seems to be advocating only > Well Known ports and eliminating Registered. > > GF> My understanding was that these are valid for source ports. > > That doesn't sound like a good idea to me... > > GF> Why, this seems common in TCP. [Tom P.] Yes, I was mistaken on this, as we discussed in Philly. > Section 3.3.2: > Is the requirement here a repetition of an earlier req at a lower > strength -- one port MAY be associated with multiple SCs as opposed to > SHOULD in a previous req? > > GF> Not sure which previous requirement? [Tom P.] Not sure where it was, but previously you had said that an implementation SHOULD allow a port to be associated with multiple SCs.
