Subject: Re: [pcp] #48: Is PEER opcode support mandatory?

From: "pcp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:17:03 -0000

#48: Is PEER opcode support mandatory?

Comment(by dthaler@…):

 6/7/2001 interim call: Dave, Alain, Stuart for mandatory.  Paul no
 preference.
 Consensus: keep as mandatory.

-- 
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  Francis.Dupont@…           |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                     |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                      |   Milestone:     
Component:  base                       |     Version:     
 Severity:  -                          |    Keywords:     
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/48#comment:1>
pcp <http://tools.ietf.org/pcp/>

---

From: "pcp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:21:52 -0000

Changes (by cheshire@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 Added comment that all PCP servers must support at least one filter per
 MAP mapping.

-- 
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  Francis.Dupont@…           |        Owner:        
     Type:  defect                     |       Status:  closed
 Priority:  major                      |    Milestone:        
Component:  base                       |      Version:        
 Severity:  -                          |   Resolution:  fixed 
 Keywords:                             |  
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/48#comment:2>
pcp <http://tools.ietf.org/pcp/>