[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: comments on draft-ietf-shim6-proto-05.txt {3}

Hi Deguang,

El 15/10/2006, a las 15:24, Deguang Le escribió:


Hi all,
a slight comment on the Context Tag...

-Page50
   o  The context tag used to transmit control messages and payload
      extension headers - allocated by the peer; CT(peer)
-Page51
   o  The context to expect in received control messages and payload
      extension headers - allocated by the local host; CT(local)
In page 50 and 51, two parameters, namely CT(peer) and CT(local), are defined for each ULID-pair context. right? 

However, in page 13, the terminology of CT is given as follows:
   Context tag         Each end of the context allocates a context tag
                       for the context.  This is used to uniquely
                       associate both received control packets and
                       payload extension headers as belonging to the
                       context.
Based on my understanding of above CT terminology, for a given context, there is only "A" unique context tag used to identify the context (i.e. the ULID-pair context, right?).
no, the above terminology states that _each_ end of the context allocates one context tag. since there are two ends in a shim context, this sums two context tags, right? CT(peer) and CT(local) 

Regards, marcelo
Therfore, I am confused why each ULID-pair context needs these "TWO" context tags: CT(peer) and CT(local)? Are the CT(peer) and the CT(local) the same thing (or are they the same 47-bit number?)in essence? 


Have a nice weekend!
Cheers,
Deguang