[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ULE encryption Support.

To: ip-dvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Subject: Re: ULE encryption Support.
From: Alain RITOUX <alain.ritoux@6wind.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:08:14 +0100
In-reply-to: <>
References: <>
Reply-to: ip-dvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Sender: owner-ip-dvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)



Allison, Art wrote:

So, if we should not encrypt at this layer [agree with Alain] and we should
not put additional error correction at this layer.. it seems we no longer
have a reason to add more than a just-in-case escape bit just in case a

yet-to-be-invented function is needed someday.


Not totally agree. This "reserve" may have no usage now, but the
mechanism is not that heavy, and once it is done, it will allow
introduciton of "possible" ext headers in a backward-compatible
way, which seems to me worth the price.

Cheers
Alain.
--
Alain RITOUX
Tel +33-1-39-30-92-32
Fax +33-1-39-30-92-11
visit our web http://www.6wind.com

Follow-Ups:
- ULE : Encryption Support, FEC, and Extension headers.
  - From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>

References:
- RE: ULE encryption Support.
  - From: "Allison, Art" <AAllison@nab.org>

Prev by Date: RE: ULE encryption Support.
Next by Date: RE: ULE encryption Support.
Previous by thread: RE: ULE encryption Support.
Next by thread: ULE : Encryption Support, FEC, and Extension headers.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread