On 16 Feb 2009, at 11:26, Ken Powell wrote:
Let me rephrase,I've learned to expect alignment to be specified in terms of the Option Type field per RFC 2460 page 10: The alignment requirement of an option is specified using the notation xn+y, meaning the Option Type must appear at an integer multiple of x octets from the start of the header, plus y octets. I read your draft last week and thought there was a problem with the "4n" alignment as well. I didn't realize you had specified alignment in terms of "Option Data" until this morning. Perhaps it would help if the text at the top of draft-stjohns-sipso-07.txt page 27 said: Following the nomenclature of RFC-2460, Section 4.2, the Option Type field of this option must have 4n+2 alignment.[RFC-2460]
I am happy to make that edit. It will appear in the next I-D version. My apologies for the unconventional wording in the I-D until then. Cheers, Ran [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
