Alejandro Perez Mendez wrote: > But after your explanation, I think that we > could either include both references (Type/Ext-Type, 3 bytes in total) > or just refer only to the Type (1 byte). From the point of view of > fragmentation, it could be enough to know that the attribute (e.g. > Vendor-Specific) is fragmented, no matter the kind of Vendor Specific > attribute we are dealing with.
I don't understand how that would work. My previous proposal to use a flag field could potentially work for the new extended VSA format, too. > I don't see why. If you find something line (CHUNKED, X, X, X, CHUNCKED, > X, X) you can easily assumed that the first [X,X,X] is one attribute > (X1) and the second [X,X] a different one (X2), as the five Xs do not > appear in sequence. Which relies on attribute ordering. That's a fatal flaw for any proposal. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
