Re: Review of draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-02

Conny,

On Mar 19, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Conny Larsson wrote:

> Nicolas, Ryuji
>
> See comment inline regarding the priority flag.
>
> Regards
> Conny
>
> Nicolas Montavont wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> I see, but in this case, what happens if
you loose the CoA (get  
>>>> un-synchronized with your HA, or the CoA
with the 255 value  
>>>> expires) which indicates 255 ?
>>>
>>> correct.
>>>
>>> My question is
>>> - do you always need default?
>>
>> I think yes.
>>
>>> - I don't specify much about treatment of this
priority field in  
>>> MCoA, because flow binding has some intention
to use this.
>>>   If you have any proposal, please propose your
text
>>
>> Ok, I'll try to propose some text.
> I find this a bit strange. If you introduce a flag (in
this case  
> the priority flag) in a protocol shouldn't that flag be
used for  
> the protocol? I.e. I think the specific use of the flag
should be  
> clearly specified in the protocol. If this can't be
done, just  
> leave it outside the protocol and let another protocol
introduce it.

Good point, and this is why we need some text in MCoA draft

Nicolas

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6ietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6