Folks, Here is the discussion on the ropt draft so far.
If you have additional comments please post now, do not wait because the draft is now on IETF Last Call. Also we need to confirm that this draft should be experimental not informational. Regards, Behcet On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Brian Haberman <[email protected]>wrote: > On 6/19/13 11:41 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote: > >> Hi Brian, >> >> On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 18:39 -0400, Brian Haberman wrote: >> >>> On 6/18/13 1:19 PM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Brian, >>>> >>>> On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 10:21 -0400, Brian Haberman wrote: >>>> >>>>> Is there any particular reason why the option format defined in section >>>>> 5.1.2 does not have a "number of MARs" field (similar to the MARs >>>>> defined in 3810)? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not really. The "Length" + "Protocol" fields can also be used to derive >>>> the number of MARs, without adding any additional information to the >>>> option, right? >>>> >>>> >>> It can, but adding an explicit count of the records gives you the >>> ability to do some error checking. >>> >>> If you think it is better to add the "number of MARs" field, we can do >>>> it in a new revision of the draft. >>>> >>> >>> I wouldn't say it is better, just more robust. I would rather have the >>> spec represent what has been implemented. >>> >> >> At the moment we have not yet implemented the multiple MAR option, so >> either solution would be equally feasible. Since you believe having an >> explicit counter is more robust, we can add the option. >> > > That is up to you. It may be worth waiting until you get additional > comments. > > > >> If there are no more comments from you or the group, we can make the >> change and produce a new version. >> >> BTW, I've just seen that IETF LC has been started on the document, but >> as Informational RFC. There was discussion within the WG about the >> intended status and the result was to make it Experimental. Is it a >> problem that the LC is initiated for Informational status? >> > > Informational and Experimental are equivalent. If the WG decides to > change to Experimental, it can be done without another IETF Last Call. > > > Regards, > Brian > > > ______________________________**_________________ > multimob mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/multimob<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob> >
_______________________________________________ multimob mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
