Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l2tpext-ppp-discinfo-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:43:12 -0600

Another typo (extremely minor , though ) that was missed out :

     Valid Direction value are : (in section 3.2)

instead of

     Valid Direction values are:

Just to keep a record of the changes to be done later !

-Madhvi

James Carlson <[email-masked]> on 01/22/2001 04:11:28 PM

Sent by:  James Carlson <[email-masked]>

To:   Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
cc:   [email-masked] (Madhvi Verma/MW/US/3Com)
Subject:  Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l2tpext-ppp-discinfo-01.txt

Thomas Narten writes:
> Do you really want the language this strong? I.e., it seems to say if
> you send using the older 3Com AVP, you are in violation of this
> spec. Seems like you would want milder language, as in you MAY want to
> send the old value to talk to older peers, but this should require
> configuration and not be the default.

After talking to the 3Com folks, I went a little further.  The feature
hasn't been shipped yet, so compatibility with existing
implementations should be a moot point (unless, I suppose, someone
other than the originator of this idea was able to ship something
first based on the previous draft).  The intent was to more forcefully
note that interoperation with older peers is not necessary since those
peers don't exist.

I'd agree, though, with a SHOULD NOT here.

> IESG Approval is probably not what you want. How about "IETF
> consensus"? That means publish an RFC.

OK; that was the intent.

> > Values 32768 through 65279 (inclusive) are assigned by the IANA on a
> > First Come First Served basis, and are intended for vendor-specific
> > features.
>
> there doesn't seem to be much need for something like that. Anyone
> that wants a value can  just ask for one.

On reexamining that, I agree.

> These are all minor issues and can be fixed later; I'll start the
> Last Call.

Thanks.  There's also one rather obvious typo that slipped out:

]           2: Too many Configure-Naks sent to from peer.

"sent to from peer" should just be "sent to peer."

--
James Carlson, Internet Engineering       <[email-masked]>
SUN Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.234W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.497N   Fax +1 781 442 1677
Second Edition now available - http://people.ne.mediaone.net/carlson/ppp