Re: Status of Seamoby drafts

James Kempf wrote:

 >Folks,
 >
 >We've had another round of IESG review on the Seamoby drafts, here's a 
quick
 >status report.
 >
 >draft-ietf-seamoby-iana: Was approved for publication with a few minor
 >changes. The IESG has decided it would rather not have people use the 
PPI in
 >SCTP to allow multiple protocols to run over the same socket, so they have
 >requested that CARD and CTP receive separate SCTP socket allocations. 
Since
 >there is no shortage of SCTP sockets, this shouldn't be a problem for
 >resource allocation. Also, there were a couple of minor wording changes
 >requested by Gab Montenegro for FMIP.
 >
 >draft-ietf-card-protocol: Joel Halpren suggested a minor change, that the
 >units of length for all the suboptions be the same, to avoid problems when
 >introducing new suboptions. I'm intending to make the change and submit
 >prior to the Monday deadline.

How do you intend to change? Due to the fact that the Router Cert
sub-option and others require more space than 252 byte, the only way
is to adjust units of length indicators for L2-ID, Address sub-option etc
from "units of octets" to "units of 8 octets" as well, right?

What is the potential problem with different units for the sub-options'
length indicator when introducing new sub-options?

Thanks,
marco