Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-hip-mm-04.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Thomas,

yes, you're right.  I'm fine with the SHOULD, in particular because the
MM spec does not preclude the Preferred locator to be in DEPRECATED
state.  Although this would be the case in corner cases only, of course.

Regards,
- Christian

-- 
Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH)
www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/



Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
> The main problem in using NOTIFY as a MUST is that the NOTIFY parameter
> is defined as being optional in the base spec.  I think that if we agree
> that we want a MUST, we will have to define a more explicit and reliable
> way to reject the locator, such as a LOCATOR_FAILURE parameter in the
> UPDATE.
> 
> Tom


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]