Re: draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-05
Ignacio Goyret <[email protected]> Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:45:38 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.l2tpext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>> * IANA Considerations:
>> Just to make it clear to everyone involved, you may want to separate
>> the lonely return code from the list of return/error codes and make
>> two lists: a return code list (one item) and an error code
>> list (with
>> the 5 items).
>
>I would appreciate your advice regarding split of the IANA Considerations section.
Sure. My thought was that instead of this:
New return codes and error codes:
1. RC-TBD-1 - return code to indicate connection refused
because of TDM PW parameters. The exact error code is as
follows.
2. EC-TBD-1 - indicate Bit Rate values disagree.
3. EC-TBD-2 - indicate different trunk types in the case of
trunk-specific CESoPSN with CAS
4. EC-TBD-3 - requested payload size too big or too small.
5. EC-TBD-4 - RTP header cannot be generated.
6. EC-TBD-5 - requested timestamp clock frequency cannot be
generated
The table could be split like this:
New return codes for the CDN message:
1. RC-TBD-1 - Connection refused because of TDM PW parameters.
The Error Code indicates the problem.
New error codes, to be used with RC-TDB-1 return code:
1. EC-TBD-1 - Bit Rate values disagree (TDM PW AVP).
2. EC-TBD-2 - Different trunk types (for trunk-specific
CESoPSN with CAS).
3. EC-TBD-3 - Requested payload size too big or too small.
4. EC-TBD-4 - RTP header cannot be generated.
5. EC-TBD-5 - Requested timestamp clock frequency cannot be
generated.
This format is more in line with IANA's registry.
Makes sense?
-Ignacio