Re: (virtual) hum on CARD open issues

Hi Vijay,

---------------------------------------------------snip------------------------------------------------------

>unbelievable. the CARD protocol is already complicated (IMO).
>the emphasis should be on reducing the complexity. just use
>a value of infinity for the lifetime field to indicate a
>static capability. any other value for the lifetime indicates
>dynamic capability. I think for the CARD protocol, emphasis
>should be on making it a simpler protocol than saving 4 bytes
>over the air. :)
>
>if you are concerned about an overhead of 4 bytes, make the
>lifetime field 2 bytes. a 2 byte lifetime field gives you
>65536 seconds which should be enough. do you need a 4 byte
>lifetime field?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am netural to this issue. However, IMO reduction of complexity as claimed 
above is mostly unfounded argument. The complexity impact is mostly 
negligible. It wont take much out of the protocol implementation that is 
already so complex as you said.

So let us toss a coin and decide on what to do ;-) and move ahead.

Hemant

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail