RE: Suggesting Improvements in RFC 1990.

Vernon Schryver writes:
> >                                   I also said there are no known
> > implementations that do this, and the point of it at all is rather
> > obscure and almost completely without merit on non-terminal fragments.
> 
> You say "rather obscure and almost completely without merit on
> non-terminal fragments."  That is an effusive recommendation compared
> to what I think about it.  My views about it are more negative than
> "completely without merit."

Fair enough.  I agree with you and I don't think padding really makes
any sense at all.  Making SDP Historic (along with the bits you
mentioned) might be a helpful move.

But _if_ for some reason you really _must_ do it, then you can't just
pad MP fragments arbitrarily, so the advice in the RFC was correct, if
somewhat (or completely) misleading.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network                    <[email protected]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

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