[MEXT] implications for draft-tsirtsis-mext-binary-filters-00.txt

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es>]

So, basically, the usage of the flow label that i was suggesting has the 
following implications for draft-tsirtsis-mext-binary-filters-00.txt.
Basically, the N number of ponters options would go away (a least for 
IPv4). The rest could be unchanged.
I would probably explain how to use flow bindings using the flow label 
as described in my previous email in order to achieve higher granularity.

One more comments about the draft:

  (G)Source Port - Low

     This field identifies the lowest source port number within a range
     of port numbers that will be used in data packets, as seen by the
     home agent.

  (H)Source Port - High

     This field identifies the highest source port number within a
     range of port numbers that will be used in data packets, as seen
     by the home agent.  If a single port is indicated then this field
     SHOULD NOT be included.  If it is included it SHOULD be set to the
     value of the Source Port - Low field.

  (I)Destination Port - Low

     This field identifies the lowest destination port number within a
     range of port numbers that will be used in data packets as seen by
     the home agent.


  (K)Destination Port - High

     This field identifies the highest destination port number within a
     range of port numbers that will be used in data packets as seen by
     the home agent.  If a single port is indicated then this field
     SHOULD NOT be included.  If it is included it SHOULD be set to the
     value of the Dst Port - Low field.


question: all these options can be present only if the (B)Protocol 
option is present, correct?