Re: (virtual) hum on CARD open issues
"Hemant Chaskar" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.seamoby |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Having optional field may be bad/may not be bad, I do not know. But this has been case even in IPv6. There are optional headers in IPv6. If those can be handled, why can't this be? My 2 cents - Hemant. >From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email protected]> >To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 <[email protected]> >CC: "'Pat R. Calhoun'" <[email protected]>, [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Seamoby] (virtual) hum on CARD open issues >Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 11:23:14 -0700 > >Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 wrote: > > > > 4. Issue #5: Static vs. dynamic capability attributes. The editor >recommends that we keep the S-bit and use the 32-bit lifetime only when >really required for dynamic capabilities. This saves bandwidth, but does >complicate processing. Meeting consensus is to keep S-bit. > > > > AJOY-> We need WG consensus about this issue. So far Vijay has suggested >us to drop the "S" bit but we have not heard from other members of the WG. >Should we drop the "S" bit or keep it? Please send your comments. > >I suggested an alternative to make the lifetime field >a bit shorter, from 4 bytes to 2 bytes. 65535 seconds >should be enough to specify the lifetime of an attribute. > >you should also keep in mind the point Robert Chalmers >made. having an optional field in the middle of a data >structure is plain bad for implementations. > >Vijay > >_______________________________________________ >Seamoby mailing list >[email protected] >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail