Re: CARD issue#30: L2 type indicators to be assigned by IANA
Vijay Devarapalli <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.seamoby |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I dont see any other option. IANA assignment is needed. otherwise how can the AR and the MN agree to the same type values for different types of interfaces? > > One of the comments to the L2 ID sub-option was that > "L2-type" identifiers need to be assigned by IANA. > Now, I assume that in case we ask IANA for type > identifiers, we need to give also a list of interface > types. This lists needs then to be extended later for > future technologies... this means there is a fundamental problem. maybe you should remove the L2 type field from the L2_ID suboption. it is considered optional already. the Sub-Option Len can indicate the length of the L2 ID field. > I am not sure if this is really required for the > experimental protocol. Take into account that using > the L2-type identifier has been indicated to be > optional. > > Comments? > > marco > > _______________________________________________ > Seamoby mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby