> On Sep 21, 2019, at 2:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 21-Sep-19 17:45, Joe Touch wrote: >> Hi, all, >> >> I wouldn’t care if this doc used 114 - as long as it is very clear that 114 >> is for *ANY* 0-hop protocol, which means ANYONE else can also use it. >> >> That means that it might be useful to treat that protocol a little like the >> experimental TCP codepoints as per RFC6994, i.e., to include a long (4-byte >> minimum) magic number and tolerate collisions. > > Or add a protocol number following this ambiguous protocol number. > > (See what I did there?)
Sure, that’s what the ID does - but it’s also a value that’s presumably unlikely to come up otherwise (that’s why it’s not just a single byte). Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
