Thanks Alvaro. We have updated the security and operational considerations in the posted rev-5 that address your comments listed below.
Thanks, Rakesh (for authors) On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 10:57 AM Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
