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

I agree that gain in dropping the lifetime field when describing
static capability parameters is significant and worth looking at
a specific flag to optimize the message and avoid redundancy.
I don't think that setting and processing of the "S"-flag (static)
in capability AVPs introduces additional complexity, neither
in the protocol description, nor from implementation point of view.

marco 

Eunsoo Shim wrote:

>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
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Seamoby mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
>  
>