Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

> Thanks Adrian for taking this on.

Well, we'll get there eventually!

> My preference is Option 1.

OK. 
It is my least favorite option because it is most likely to hit interoperability
issues.
So, if the WG wants to go this way, we will have to work a little to explain how
it works and why it isn't a problem (specifically for the IESG).

> It would be hard to catch moving target around this
> area if we were to take Option 2.

I see no moving targets at all.
This is how all other vendor-specific fields are handled in protocols.
The way it works is that anyone receiving such a field looks at the first 32
bits and interprets it as an Enterprise Code from the IANA registry (hint: easy
to get and many well-known vendors have them).
If it is an Enterprise Code they recognise they process according to their own
vendor-specific knowledge about the contents.
If they don't recognise the Enterprise Code, they fail the processing.
An Enterprise will often (always?) define their own structure starting with a
version number or something similar, and often using TLVs.

What have I missed about moving targets?

Cheers,
Adrian