Re: [CARD Technical Issue]Static v.s. dynamic attributes

Initially 32 bits were assigned for the lifetime field in the AVP format.
But we realized that many attributes would be static and the 32 bits would
be waste of bandwidth for those attributes. If the CARD reply contains 10
static attributes, the waste becomes 320 bits.
So, for bandwidth efficiency, we made the lifetime field as optional. Since
the value format depends on each attribute type, having the lifetime field
as a part of the value field does not seem to add much complexity to the
implementation.

Anyway there is tradeoff between bandwidth efficiency and additional
complexity of the implementation. What do others think?

Eunsoo

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Kempf" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 5:46 PM
Subject: [Seamoby] [CARD Technical Issue]Static v.s. dynamic attributes


> Section 5.1.4 specifies a flag to indicate whether an attribute is static
or
> dynamic. How about using a lifetime of zero to indicate this? No real
> lifetime is going to be advertised as zero, and this allows the AVP code
to
> take up a byte, and the lifetime field is always there, making the message
> easier to process.
>
>             jak
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
>