Hi Alvaro,
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 9:25 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > On February 17, 2023 at 11:17:10 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > > Behcet: > > Hi! Thanks for your review! > > > ... > > Flag Bit 7 in PIM common header is defined as Capability bit but in > Figure 1 > > and throughout the draft it is marked as P bit not as C bit > > That is meant to be the Packed Capability, hence "P". But you bring > up a good point in that the terminology is not consistent. The text > should be consistent in using "packet capability" (vs just > "capability"). > > OK > > > > However, RFC 8736 seems to indicate that Flag Bit 7 is already reserved > as > > No-Forward bit in RFC 5059 So maybe another Flag bit needs to be used. > > Each PIM message has a separate field of flag bits. rfc5059 uses bit > 7 in the Bootstrap message (only). Bit 7 in the Register-Stop message > is not used. > > I had originally thought that Section 2 was referring to one of the new messages this draft introduced but actually it was extending an existing PIM-SM message, Register-Stop. So this draft introduces two new PIM-SM messages and also modifies one message to indicate packing capability. Behcet Thanks! > > Alvaro. >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
