[dccp] Re: dccp draft | additional note to section 5.8.

[Mark Handley <M.Handley at cs.ucl.ac.uk>]

I'm not clear that we need to specify this.  The art of a good spec is
to specify what is needed for interoperability, and to avoid attacks
on the protocol, but to leave enough unspecified to allow future
evolution within the framework you've set.

 - Mark

On 2/8/06, Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen at jauu.net> wrote:
>
> Additional note to document draft-ietf-dccp-spec-13.txt
>
> Section 5.8. (Options) stated that options are processed sequentially and
> unknown types or with nonsensical lengths MUST be ignored.
>
> What about the case that a broken implementation send out similarly options
> but with different values several times in one packet? Which option should
> the receiver take care? Its advantageous to define this arrangement also in
> the draft!
>
> Any opinions about that?
>
> best regards
>
> Hagen Paul Pfeifer
>
> --
> Signed and/or encrypted mails preferd. Key-Id = 0x98350C22
> Fingerprint = 490F 557B 6C48 6D7E 5706 2EA2 4A22 8D45 9835 0C22
>