On Tue, Nov 26, 2024, 4:19 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica= 40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> Tom, > > That thought crossed my mind last week. So, I posted a version 02 > immediately after posting version 01. > > The fix is in version 02. Also added you to the acknowledgement section. > Ron, Looks good! I support adoption. Tom > Happy Thanksgiving, > > Ron > > > Juniper Business Use Only > ------------------------------ > *From:* Tom Herbert <tom=40herbertland....@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 26, 2024 6:08 PM > *To:* Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> > *Cc:* int-area@ietf.org <int-area@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Int-area] ICMP Extension Header Length Field > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 7:45 AM Ron Bonica > <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > Tom, > > > > Good idea! > > > > We could make it an 8-bit field representing 4 bytes of options. > > > > So: > > > > everything in the header is 8-bit aligned > > we can still support 1,024 bytes of options! > > Hi Ron, > > Thanks for changing that, but can you align the length field byte to > an eight bit boundary? It's nicer to a CPU processing the header. > Maybe a format like: > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |Version| Rsvd | Length | > Checksum | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Tom > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Tom Herbert <tom=40herbertland....@dmarc.ietf.org> > > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 10:17 AM > > To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> > > Cc: int-area@ietf.org <int-area@ietf.org> > > Subject: Re: [Int-area] ICMP Extension Header Length Field > > > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > > > > Hi Ron, > > > > >From the draft: > > > > "This field represents the total length of all options contained in > > the ICMP Extension Structure. It does not include the length of the > > Extension Header. The length is measured in bytes. Legacy > > implementations set this field to 0." > > > > Alternatively, could the length be specified in units of four bytes? I > > believe all the options should have length of four bytes (i.e. padding > > isn't needed), and it's always good practice to ensure that the thing > > following the extension header is four byte aligned. This also would > > have the nice side effect that the length field could be in one > > aligned byte instead of an awkward ten bit field. > > > > Tom > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 6:42 AM Ron Bonica > > <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > Please review and comment on ICMP Extension Header Length Field, It > proposes to add a length attribute to the ICMP Extension Structure, > > > > > > The draft is only 4 pages long, including boilerplate, so it shouldn't > take much time to review. However, there is some urgency because other > drafts rely on this length attribute. > > > > > > > > > Chairs, > > > > > > Could we have a call for adoption when some reviews have come in? > > > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Int-area mailing list -- int-area@ietf.org > > > To unsubscribe send an email to int-area-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- int-area@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to int-area-le...@ietf.org
