Re: (virtual) hum on CARD open issues

Hemant Chaskar wrote:
> 
> 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? 

its a totally different thing. the entire IPv6 packet is
never copied onto a singe data structure. and IPv6 has a 
nice header chaining mechanism to process one protocol 
header after the other.

Vijay

> 
> >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