Good clarifications. I have revised the text. Thanks!
Thomas
Hitoshi Asaeda writes:
> Hi Thomas,
> >> >> "Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD also implement either
> >> >> MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790]."
> >> >
> >> > Is there a short (less than one page) descri
Hi Thomas,
>> >> "Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD also implement either
>> >> MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790]."
>> >
>> > Is there a short (less than one page) description of the difference
>> > between RFCs 3810 and 5790? One that actually explains what the
>> > i
Hitoshi Asaeda writes:
> >> "Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD also implement either
> >> MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790]."
> >
> > Is there a short (less than one page) description of the difference
> > between RFCs 3810 and 5790? One that actually explains what th
>> "Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD also implement either
>> MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790]."
>
> Is there a short (less than one page) description of the difference
> between RFCs 3810 and 5790? One that actually explains what the
> implementation differences are
> "Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD also implement either
> MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790]."
Is there a short (less than one page) description of the difference
between RFCs 3810 and 5790? One that actually explains what the
implementation differences are?
Thomas
Hi,
I have a comment about the description of MLD version in the node
requirement draft;
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07
In MBONED WG, the Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] that simplifies the
protocol spec of MLDv2 is published as the proposed standard RFC.
Hence I recommend
