I support the current text. Having explicit marking for mandatory attributes (a "Critical bit") adds power to protocol extensions, in that you can ensure that negotiation will fail if the other side doesn't understand you.
Thanks,
Yaron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 23:06
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Emu] Issue #21: Mandatory Vs. Optional
>
>
> #21: Mandatory Vs. Optional
>
> > Section 4.3.3
> >
> > " The payload MUST support marking of mandatory and optional
> > attributes, as well as an attribute used for rejecting mandatory
> > attributes."
> >
> > Why is it necessary for mandatory and optional attributes to
> > be explicitly marked? Is it be sufficient for the attributes
> > to be divided into standardized and vendor-specific spaces,
> > with the latter optional?
> >
>
> --
> Ticket URL: <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/emu/trac/ticket/21>
> emu <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/emu/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
>
> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
