Preferences and Requirements Options (was Re: Proposal to resolve remaining CARD issues)

hi Marco,

Marco Liebsch wrote:

>
> Issue#17: Preferences/Requirements sub-option - One
> of them is sufficient?
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Proposal is to keep both, since this implies just the definition of a 
> further sub-option type, which indicates
> that only Attributes without any Data field will follow
> in case of receiving a Preferences sub-option.
> The Requirements parameter sub-option will carry then a
> list of Attribute-Value pairs, the Preferences parameter
> carries a list of Attributes (just the AVP Code and
> Length, no Lifetime, no Data).


one has to still implement both, right?

I still think one of them is enough. I suggest removing the Requirements 
Sub-Option.
it causes more harm than benefit. here is one example.

lets assume none of the CARs were able to meet the MN's requirements. 
the CARD
Reply returns empty. because of the MN's strict requirements, it loses 
connectivity.
isnt that worse than picking a CAR with less capabilities? a local 
decision at the
MN is better than the MN not getting any CARs.

Vijay