Hi Thomas, The text looks good, I'll add it.
thanks, John > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Thomas Narten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 29 September, 2003 21:16 > To: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue26: 9.1.1 IPv6 Router Alert > Option - RFC2711 > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Reading 2711, there are some host / server specific issues > about 2711. > > Suggested text: > > > IPv6 Router Alert Option specific [RFC-2711] defines a > new option in the > > s/specific/specifically/? > > IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Header. Hosts MAY support the router alert option > > defined. Nodes that generate RSVP message MUST implement > the router > > alert option. The Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] MUST be > supported by > > nodes that perform packet forwarding at the IP layer > (i.e. - the node is > > a router). > > Router alerts are also required with MLD messages. So wording that > reflects this would be good. Indeed, I don't think the RSVP usage is > so important to mention, given that RSVP isn't mentioned elsewhere in > the document. How about something like the following instead: > > The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] is an optional IPv6 > Hop-by-Hop Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols > (e.g., RSVP [RFC XXX], or MLD [RFC XXX]). The Router Alert option > will need to be implemented whenever protocols that mandate its > usage are implemented. See Section XXX-MLD. > > > Thomas > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
