On August 13, 2026 at 5:01:31 PM, Rakesh Gandhi wrote: Rakesh:
Hi! Thanks for the quick answers. ... > > 2- In section 7.1, a new network action (MNA.TSF) is defined. The spring WG > > is not chartered to define extensions. Aside from the definition, its use > > is unclear because you say it falls within the private use range in the > > registry. In other words, it is not registered. Some interoperability- > > related questions come up: How does a sender determine whether a reflector > > supports it? Is it actually interoperable, or locally configured? > > <RG> Right, the Network action opcode and semantics are locally configured and > not signalled or registered. This is the part I'm not so sure about. If the network action's opcode/semantics are only locally configured and not signaled or registered, then a sender has no standard way to know if a reflector supports it -- that's not really interoperable, and defining it is outside what the WG is chartered to do. At minimum, I would want to see stronger/detailed Operational Considerations around this configuration, failure modes, etc.. I'll talk about this with Joel/Bruno and start the poll on the document status (informational vs. standards track) separately. Thanks! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
