Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-pktc-kerb-tckt-01.txt

Bud and all,

Am I missing something here?  If so, please set me straight...

1. RFC 2132 (options 24, 26, 35, 51, etc.) uses the same convention.

2. RFC 3495, which was approved by this group not two months ago,  is using 
this same convention (in multiple locations).  How did this convention fall 
out of favor in the last two months?

3. Given that RFC 3495 employs this convention, and given that this draft 
is a follow-on addition to 3495 (i.e. it will be implemented by all who are 
currently implementing 3495), I do not want to change conventions unless 
absolutely necessary.

???

At 10:55 AM 4/28/2003 +0200, Bud Millwood wrote:
>On Wednesday 23 April 2003 21.36, Thomas Narten wrote:
>
> > > > >        Code   Len      TCM
> > > > >       +-----+-----+-----+-----+
> > > > >
> > > > >       | TBD |  2  | m1  | m2  |
> > > > >
> > > > >       +-----+-----+-----+-----+
> > > >
> > > >It might be better to not have m1/m2, since the text talks about a
> > > >single 16-bit field rather than two smaller fields.
>
>FWIW, I agree with Thomas. I think it's just misleading to have it split if
>it's a 16 bit field. The picture above implies a struct with two bytes, and
>some need to work with the bytes separately.
>
>Bud Millwood
>Weird Solutions, Inc.
>http://www.weird-solutions.com
>tel: +46 8 758 3700
>fax: +46 8 758 3687
>mailto:budm@weird-solutions.com

--

Paul Duffy
Cisco Systems, Inc.
paduffy@cisco.com

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg