[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ULE Extension Headers
Allison, Art wrote:
Taking one....
(1) ULE Extension Headers - We have described a number of ways we can
encode extra headers associated with a specific SNDU, that a receiver
may optionally ignore without having to discard a PDU. However, we
have yet to agree if this is needed and which way is best. The most
promising seem to be:
(a) use a 16-bit type field to indicate "extension header follows"
(b) use a 1-bit flag to indicate "extension header follows"
(c) the assignment of type field values to identify each
individual extension header.
I recommend we add only a "place holder note" in the next revision of
the ULE draft (to be released in about one-two weeks) which says the WG
could possibly consider future extension headers (if needed), and
continue this discussion for the next revision (this can happen quickly
if the WG gets consensus, at the moment I see too many options
and unclear concrete examples).
----
I thought discussion faded to silence after I <effectively> acknowledged (b)
was ok with me. (And I thought some wanted to define the following structure
when the bit is set - an activity to which I do not think there were
objections.)
I also am in favour of b) A structure was proposed for the case where
the bit is set. I didn't feel any strong objection against the proposed
definition, neither a great support ;-) but we were just 3 or 4 to
discuss about it, I don't know the feeling of the WG about this stuff.
How to proceed any further ?
So maybe we have acceptance of an approach for this item?
maybe.
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