Hi Alvaro,
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 9:25 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On February 17, 2023 at 11:17:10 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Behcet:
Hi! Thanks for your review!
...
> Flag Bit 7 in PIM common header is defined as Capability bit but in Figure 1
> and throughout the draft it is marked as P bit not as C bit
That is meant to be the Packed Capability, hence "P". But you bring
up a good point in that the terminology is not consistent. The text
should be consistent in using "packet capability" (vs just
"capability").
OK
> However, RFC 8736 seems to indicate that Flag Bit 7 is already reserved as
> No-Forward bit in RFC 5059 So maybe another Flag bit needs to be used.
Each PIM message has a separate field of flag bits. rfc5059 uses bit
7 in the Bootstrap message (only). Bit 7 in the Register-Stop message
is not used.
I had originally thought that Section 2 was referring to one of the new messages this draft introduced but actually it was extending an existing PIM-SM message, Register-Stop. So this draft introduces two new PIM-SM messages and also modifies one message to indicate packing capability.
Behcet
Thanks!
Alvaro.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
