marcelo bagnulo braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > El 02/12/2005, a las 12:16, Francis Dupont escribió:
> > In your previous mail you wrote: > > > > This is a very simple and short draft that defines a format for CGA > > extensions. > > > > => IMHO the main interest of the document is its IANA consideration > > section, isn't it? > > > indeed > the draft defines a namespace for cga extensions that is to be managed > so that if multiple extensions are defined they can be recognized and > can be used together without interfering with each other This I don't quite understand. It sounds to me like you are trying to associate random extensions with a particular CGA Message Type Name Space (which may well be OK). But exactly what protocols would carry such extensions? And wouldn't _those_ protocols need to define the type field (as I think it would be relative to that protocol)? What this document seems to be doing is defining a TLV option space, but the TLV numbering space isn't associated with any specific protocol. I don't understand how that would be used. Can you give an example of a specific protocol where the TLV option would be carried? Tomas _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
