On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Stig Venaas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/19/2013 8:59 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Personally I think a MARs counter could be useful. > > I also agree. > > Also we need to confirm that this draft should be experimental not >> informational. >> > > For this, please read > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/**informational-vs-experimental.**html<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html> > first, and then try to see what looks the most appropriate. > > Of course Experimental looks the most appropriate. Regards, Behcet > Stig > > Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Brian Haberman >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:brian@innovationslab.**net<[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] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/_**_listinfo/multimob<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/multimob> >> >> <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<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ multimob mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
