RE: I-D ACTION:draft-arberg-pppoe-mtu-gt1492-01.txt
"Paul W. Howard" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Peter, I see a couple of items in the draft that are not what I expected given the notes I have from the DSL Forum meetings. Can you comment on them? Sec 4, para 2 - Server responding with tag. As I recall, this was going to be simply an echo of the tag received from the client to confirm the ability to server to handle the tag from the client. The draft is unclear on this, but it could be read as the server is generating a tag value based on local knowledge instead of just echoing the client's tag. Sec 5.1, para 5? - "If a MRU option is not sent...". As I recall, we were not going to re-define the meaning of the absence MRU option, rather leave it at the standard value of 1500. It seems that this paragraph attempts to redefine the meaning of the absence as either 1492 (if no PPP-MAX-PAYLOAD tag) or the value of the PPP-MAX-PAYLOAD tag if present. Thanx, Paul Howard _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext