[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ANCP] Changes to ANCP multicast
I am resending this to the list as a matter of record -- Francois has already
replied to it. The original fell into a black hole because I changed my E-mail
address.
----
Please see below.
Francois Le Faucheur wrote:
including the ANCP list as others may be interested.
Francois
On 8 Oct 2009, at 16:53, Francois Le Faucheur wrote:
Hi Tom,
One question to better understand your proposal:
In http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ancp/current/msg00955.html you
said:
"Given that that Command TLVs will be present only in a limited set of
message types, and "Cmnd Nmbr" is not one of the fields defined within
the Command TLV, I would also remove "Cmnd Nmbr" from Status-Info. It
can always be specified as part of the failureresponse to a particular
message type."
I am not sure how to read that.
Are you saying that the Cmnd Nb would not appear in the Generic
Response message because if it is needed we woudl use a more specific
Response message?
[PTT]
Yes, that's what I had in mind.
For the case of a negative response to a Multicast Replication Control
message: are you proposing that the Generic Response message be used
(and then would it not have to contain the "Cmnd Nb") or are you
saying that we would then use a new "Multicast Replication Control
Response" which woudl contain the Cmnd Nb?
[PTT]
I would recommend a response specific to Multicast Replication Control. However,
my E-mail of 27/08/2009 suggested adding a new sub-TLV to Status-Info. To quote
from the earlier message:
*** command error
-- Needs a new Code value, so add
85 Command error
to base, and define in base a sub-TLV of Status-info to carry the sequence
number of the command within the message. This sub-TLV could also carry an
additional diagnostic code with its own IANA registry if people think it might
be useful. Extensions would define the actual code values and add them to the
registry. Likely candidates are some of the errors listed in section 4.4:
- Command not supported
- Flag set but not supported
- M Flag set, but no IP Source address provided
- Unsupported Address Family
- Unsupported address encoding
- Malformed flow address
- Multicast flow does not exist
Thanks
francois
On 6 Oct 2009, at 17:15, Tom Taylor wrote:
I'm very happy to do that. Then we can discuss the result.
Maglione Roberta wrote:
Hello Tom,
in my opinion instead of submitting a new individual draft you
should update the current mcast draft and propose your changes as a
new version of the draft:
draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-01
Meanwhile I can update the protocol draft with the additional
changes that you proposed.
Best Regards,
Roberta
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor at rogers.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:57 PM
To: Francois Le Faucheur IMAP; Maglione Roberta; Wojciech Dec
Subject: Changes to ANCP multicast
I made some major proposals regarding the ANCP protocol drafts at
the end of
August but have had no feedback. I'm wodering if the best way
forward, given all
I have in mind, is to submit a new draft-taylor-ancp-mc-extensions
incorporating
all my proposals, to serve as a basis for discussion that people can
relate to.
What are your views?
Tom
Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente
alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione
derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente
vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete
cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e
di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.
This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain
privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only.
Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is
unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete
this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return
e-mail, Thanks.