Subject: Section 6

From: vishwas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 98 15:28:00 PST

Hi All,
 As I did not get any feed back from the authors regarding un-wanted   
sub-sections in section 6 of the PIM-DM draft, I am posting this again,

1)
Is it really necessary to have things related to PIM-SM in PIM-DM..? If   
not pl. update section 6 in the next revesion of the draft. And in each   
subsections of section 6, it is better to mention the destination address   
on which this protocol packet is sent on. For example, I dont find any   
where on what address the Hello messages are sent on..? Though it   
defaults to ALL-PIM-ROUTERS.
 As another example, it may be required to mention in PIM-DM Assert   
Message Packet Format that, how to treat the R-bit (RPT-bit) in case of   
PIM-DM.
 In section 6.6, some (*,G) has come in to picture. This may cause a lot   
of confusion among people, like the recent mail from Avella.

2)
Shall we have a new section for Interop with other multicast routers. Or   
is it out of scope of this draft...?

Comments Please..

Regards
Vishwanath S. Edavayyanamath
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 ------------------------
Software Engineer, Future Software Pvt. Ltd, Chennai, India
Ph : +91-44-4330550 (335)
Private e-mail : [email-masked]