Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue26: 9.1.1 IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC2711

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 07:03:32 +0300

Hi Thomas,

The text looks good, I'll add it.

thanks,
John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Thomas Narten [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 29 September, 2003 21:16
> To: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue26: 9.1.1 IPv6 Router Alert 
> Option - RFC2711
> 
> 
> 
> [email-masked] writes:
> 
> > Reading 2711, there are some host / server specific issues 
> about 2711. 
> > Suggested text:
> 
> >   IPv6 Router Alert Option specific [RFC-2711] defines a 
> new option in the
> 
> s/specific/specifically/?
> >   IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Header. Hosts MAY support the router alert option 
> >   defined. Nodes that generate RSVP message MUST implement 
> the router
> >   alert option. The Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] MUST be 
> supported by 
> >   nodes that perform packet forwarding at the IP layer 
> (i.e. - the node is
> >   a router).
> 
> Router alerts are also required with MLD messages. So wording that
> reflects this would be good. Indeed, I don't think the RSVP usage is
> so important to mention, given that RSVP isn't mentioned elsewhere in
> the document. How about something like the following instead:
> 
>   The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] is an optional IPv6
>   Hop-by-Hop Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols
>   (e.g., RSVP [RFC XXX], or MLD [RFC XXX]). The Router Alert option
>   will need to be implemented whenever protocols that mandate its
>   usage are implemented.  See Section XXX-MLD.
> 
> 
> Thomas  
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------