Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > An RFC specifying that would therefore have to declare itself to be >> > an update of GRASP. I don't think this is a big deal. It would become >> >> I think that you mean, update of BRSKI rather than "update of GRASP".
> Possibly both, because GRASP already defines > transport-proto = IPPROTO_TCP / IPPROTO_UDP > IPPROTO_TCP = 6 > IPPROTO_UDP = 17 Ah right. I just don't care... someone else decide and tell me what. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima