I agree with Yaron. Being able to define optional IETF standard attributes is also useful since you sometimes DON'T want to fail the negotiation if the other side doesn't understand the extension. So optional/mandatory is orthogonal to standard/vendor-defined.
Thanks, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Yaron Sheffer > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:52 PM > To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Emu] Issue #21: Mandatory Vs. Optional > > 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. > _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
