Re: DRAFT Montreal minutes - X#NodeArchitecture comments

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Paul Koning wrote:

>  William> 2) I note that a device may chose to pretend it doesn't
>  William> understand a key that isn't mandatory, even though it really
>  William> does. For X#NodeArchitecture, a device may answer with
>  William> differing levels of detail. The lowest level may well be to
>  William> pretend that the key's not understood. In such a case, the
>  William> device MUST fully pretend it doesn't understand, and as per
>  William> rule (1) above, it MUST not offer the key and MUST respond
>  William> with "NotUnderstood."
>
>  William> Note: this is a different behavior from understanding
>  William> X#NodeArchitecture and choosing not to declare a value to
>  William> the other side.
>
> I'm not sure whether that is a distinction without a difference.  Does
> it matter whether you can do that?  Do we need any extra text to make
> it legal to do that?  I don't think so; if a key is optional then not
> implementing it is allowed.  "Not implementing" may be a runtime
> choice, not just a design-time choice.
>
> If we do need that text for X#NodeArchitecture, it belongs in the
> spec for that key, it isn't part of the 3720 fix.

I'm sorry. I don't think we need to change the text for item (2). I  
just wanted to make sure that we'd thought about it. And I also  
wanted to put a discussion of it into the mail archives. :-)

I agree that "Not implementing" can be a run-time choice.

Take care,

Bill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFE5L7yDJT2Egh26K0RAjyRAJsEE9e5b+y0SCjCoyualNRGJtLjgwCePW3+
yy+YuFKdOjMUbEiTg80PIi8=
=r5C2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips