Re: CARD issue#30: L2 type indicators to be assigned byIANA

Marco Liebsch wrote:
> 
> Following James' proposal, we can check whether of not there are
> already type indicators assigned, which can be re-used.
> However, in case there are no proper values available,
> is it preferred to drop this field or should we go for requesting
> a sample of technology IDs (Ethernet, IEEE802.11b, ...)?
> I think it could be reasonable to have this indicator in a
> L2 ID, hence I support James' proposal to request an ID for
> one or two technologies.
> 
> What do you think?

sure. as long as IANA assigns L2 type values, there
wont be any interop problems.

Vijay

> 
> marco
> 
> Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> 
> >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
> >>
> >>