Re: [MEXT] Flow Bindings WGLC output: pre-04 version

[George Tsirtsis <tsirtsis at googlemail.com>]

I thought I had corrected this so good catch. I fixed it now in:
http://www.tsirtsis.com/draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-pre_04.txt

Thanks
George

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Conny Larsson
<conny.larsson at ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> Yes, that sounds good. Thanks.
>
> Another thing. I have mentioned it several times but I will bring it up one
> last time. The length of the "Option Len" field in the "Flow Identification
> Mobility" option is in 8-octets units. But RFC3775, section 6.2.1, defines
> the Mobility Option "Option Length" field as an "8-bit unsigned integer,
> representing the length in octets of the mobility option, not including the
> Option Type and Option Length fields".
>
> Is there a reason for changing this convention, i.e. 8-octet units instead
> of octets?
>
>
> Regards
> Conny
>
> George Tsirtsis wrote:
>>
>> Hi Conny,
>>
>> I updated http://www.tsirtsis.com/draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-pre_04.txt
>> so that all of these are now marked as "Value "0" is reserved and
>> SHOULD NOT be used".
>>
>> This seems to be the way it is handled in other RFCs since it allows a
>> future document (or even an implementation that knows what it is
>> doing) to overwrite it.
>>
>> I hope that is OK.
>>
>> George
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Conny Larsson
>> <conny.larsson at ericsson.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi George,
>>>
>>> Well the idea was that it should be allowed to use for instance the "0"
>>> value and this should be interpreted as "this field is not used". As of
>>> today it says "MUST NOT be used" but I would like it to be treated as an
>>> allowed value.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Conny
>>>
>>> George Tsirtsis wrote:
>>>
>>> I do not exactly follow you but the "0" values are already reserved
>>> for all of these, and for FID and FID-PRI, "MUST NOT be used" is
>>> indicated.
>>>
>>> George
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:05 AM, George Tsirtsis
>>> <tsirtsis at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for the many detailed online reviews during the WGLC as
>>> well as a number of reviews and suggestions received off-line.
>>> Although the reviews allowed us to clarify a number of issues, no
>>> significant changes had to be made to the protocol.
>>>
>>> I have updated the draft but since I missed the deadline I posted it
>>> here:
>>> http://www.tsirtsis.com/draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-pre_04.txt
>>>
>>> I will post this officially as soon as the Editor starts accepting I-Ds.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> George
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MEXT mailing list
>>> MEXT at ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>
>
>