On 2/10/2017 1:23 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> - I disagree with MUST support a minimum of 64 bytes of options; making that >> requirement effectively limits everyone to using only 64. IMO, that number >> is both too small and sets the protocol up to have "dead wood" (i.e., larger >> option space is specified but can't be relied upon so might never gain >> traction). >> > Having both a minimum and a different maximum value is superfluous. > The minimum value is the maximum value in practice. Agreed - that was basically my point (though you put it more succinctly).
Joe
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
