> On Nov 21, 2018, at 15:51, Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It may have been my failure. If that was the case, please accept my
> apologies.
We are all busy and I understand that things do sometimes fall through
cracks. So long as we can apply the agreed edits now, I’m quite happy.
> SECTION "3.4.1.5. Advice"
>>
>> EXISTING:
>>
>> For legacy nodes, the recommended configuration for the processing of
>> these packets depends on the features and capabilities of the underlying platform.
>>
>> PROPOSED NEW:
>>
>> For legacy nodes, the recommended configuration for the processing of
>> these packets depends on the features and capabilities of the underlying platform,
>> the configuration of the platform, and also the deployment environment
>> of the platform.
>>
>> REASONS:
>>
>> Which configuration for processing of HBH options is reasonable depends
>> not only on the features/capabilities, but also how the system has actually
>> been configured (e.g. it might have enabled some feature that BREAKS
>> proper operation if all packets with HBH headers are dropped) and also
>> what kind of deployment environment it is in. RSVP remains fairly
>> widely deployed and used today, although obviously it is not deployed
>> or used everywhere; RSVP would break. Similarly, in an MLS deployment
>> environment, transmitting packets containing the CALIPSO HBH is
>> critical (more later on this).
>
> Makes sense. Maybe we could add your paragraph on "REASONS" as a
> parenthetical (indented) note?
I’m flexible about editing text. I supplied candidate text primarily to be
clear about what edits I hope to see. Feel free to add it as a note or
simply to edit the key points into the candidate text to create suitable
new text.
> Also makes sense. Unless somebody screams agains, I will apply the
> suggested edit.
Thank you very much - and a Happy Thanksgiving [1] to all.
Yours,
Ran
[1] A quaint North American holiday, celebrated today in the US and
celebrated last month in Canada.
