Subject: Re: 2842

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 17:43:51 -0700

Yakov, Jeff

 [bringing this back to the list]

 For some reason, Jeff's message did not get to me...

 I think Jeff's proposed text actually changes the meaning,
 not just wording. Specifically "Processing of these capability
 instances" sounds like processing of those with the same
 type, length and value, which is not what Yakov's text
 says.
 
Alex

> Date:    Mon, 08 Apr 2002 11:25:15 EDT
> To:      Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
> cc:      Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> From:    Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: 2842

> Suggested tweaks, largely removing some redundancies between the two
> paragraphs.

> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:37:04PM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>>    BGP speakers SHOULD NOT include more than one instance of a
>>    capability with the same Capability Code, Capability Length,
>>    and Capability Value.  Note however, that processing of multiple
>>    instances of such capability does not require special handling,
>>    as additional instances do not change the meaning of announced
>>    capability.

>>    BGP speakers MAY include more than one instance of a capability
>>    (as identified by the Capability Code) with non-zero Capability
>>    Length field, but with different Capability Value, and either
>>    the same or different Capability Length.  Processing of these
>>    capability instances is specific to the Capability Code and MUST
>>    be described in the document introducing the new capability.

> BGP speakers SHOULD NOT include more than one instance of a
> capability with the same Capability Code, Capability Length and
> Capability Value.  Additional instances of a capability code do not
> change the meaning of an announced capability.  Processing of these
> capability instances is specific to the Capabilility Code and MUST
> be described in the document introducing the new capability.

>> Yakov.