Re: Review of draft-bberry-rfc4938bis-00.txt
Frank Solensky <[email protected]> Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:27:13 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Sorry for the last message but it just came to my attention that there's one aspect of the draft that should be made more clear. The way I read the draft and its predecessor, the support for PADG/C messages and PADQ messages are orthogonal to each other. That is, if the exchange of PADR/S messages when the session is first established does not include the Credit and Credit Scale TLVs indicating PADG/C support, each side can still send PADQs. Is this a correct interpretation? Either way: should this be explicitly called out? _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext