Re: DRAFT Montreal minutes - X#NodeArchitecture comments
William Studenmund <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ips |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 2, 2006, at 12:15 AM, Sandars, Ken wrote: > Hi David, > > Making an extension key 'Declarative' seems problematic. > > Implementations which do not recognise the key will reply with > X<blah>=NotUnderstood. This may upset the proposer since > "NotUnderstood" > is unlikely to be an acceptable use of the new key. > > "NotUnderstood" could be treated as a special case, but do we really > want a special case? We talked about this in Montreal. Or I tried to a bit. At this point, I think we have to accept "NotUnderstood" as a valid response to the key, indicating that the other side doesn't understand. We can't do anything different. We thus should state that "NotUnderstood" is an invalid X#NodeArchitecture value (you MUST never attempt to assert that it's your architecture value), and its presence in a response should be taken to mean the responder doesn't understand the key. Take care, Bill -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFE0PF+DJT2Egh26K0RAo/HAJ9l/P5P2+IXBpxRoFpC7e+8xGFnqACgnK+h a0dpyEyHGiJAE89nyLXFzuk= =dvFt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ips mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips