Subject: Re: Comments on 2292bis (Adv. API)

From: Tim Hartrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:03:40 -0700 (PDT)

Jinmei,

> 
> #define MLD6_LISTENER_QUERY		130 	/* multicast listener query */
> #define MLD6_LISTENER_REPORT		131	/* multicast listener report */
> #define MLD6_LISTENER_DONE		132	/* multicast listener done */
>

In order to keep the namespace gods quite I would say that we should
stick to ICMP6 prefix for all the ICMPv6 types and codes.

tim 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 01:15:44 +0900

>>>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:03:40 -0700 (PDT), 
>>>>> Tim Hartrick <[email-masked]> said:

> stick to ICMP6 prefix for all the ICMPv6 types and codes.

Seems reasonable. I won't oppose to changing our definitions to, for,
example, ICMP6_MLD_LISTENER_QUERY, or whatever. The only point that I
want is to adopt MLD-like macro names.

##However, we've already had exception to the ICMP6_XXX rule; ND_xxx
##macros:-)

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 19:06:23 +0200

=> I believe Jinmei's idea is to have both ICMP6_MEMBERSHIP_QUERY and
MLD6_LISTENER_QUERY, isn't it?

[email-masked]

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:23:09 +0900

>>>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 19:06:23 +0200, 
>>>>> Francis Dupont <[email-masked]> said:

> MLD6_LISTENER_QUERY, isn't it?

That's right. It's my understanding that one of concerns of 2292bis is
to insure lower compatibility(i.e. compatibility with old 2292). Since
these two (old and new) macros can coexist, we should do so.

Thanks for clarification, Francis.

					JINMEI, Tatuya