Good points Mark.
>- the bits that previously indicated the presence of SCT and
>ERT should just be 'reserved' - I would not anticipate future
>use without defining a new protocol version
Yes, this is the intent.
>- it should be specified that if there are additional fields
>in the EXT_TIME after the SCT, ERT and SLC then these should
>be ignored by receivers, to allow more to be added in future
>in a backwards compatible way.
Yes. I'm not sure what normal RFC convention would be but my gut feeling
is that its best not to make normative behaviour - i.e. "these bits are
ignored" and not "these bits SHOULD be ignored". In this way another
spec using those bits isn't altering normative ALC behaviour.
Cheers, Rod.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.