> > And the figure clearly shows the length at 6 octets only. I'm not > > arguing the draft didn't _intend_ to make this a variable length field > > -- I'm arguing the draft, as written, can easily be misinterpreted, and could > use clarification. > > [JD] The field is six octets. What is contained within the field is six octets > today but may be less in the future. AFAIK this is consistent w/ standard IETF > design, e.g., CIDR.
CIDR is yet another mess -- not a good example, IMHO. So the field is a _maximum_ of six octets, and potentially shorter? This isn't explained in the document at all, and it should be. > [JD] Your chastisement of my egregious behavior would have been more > compelling if you had provided any technical arguments for why the current > design has issues or flaws. There is a difference between "flawed" and "not elegant." It will work, but I think it would have been cleaner/more elegant if the binding would have been "loose," with a "connector," rather than the alias construction. Aliases seem simple, but they add complexity in terms of ossification later on -- they are more difficult to change in the future. Either way, a technical discussion is not the place to insert claims of someone else being ignorant, etc. :-) Russ _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
