Re: [dhcwg] draft-cao-dhc-anqp-option-00

So, you are saying there can be (in the future) multiple types (each followed by data)? Perhaps I missed that but it wasn't clear to me from the draft. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 29, 2012, at 3:49 PM, "Zhen Cao" <zehn.cao@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Bernie,
> 
> Thank you for the comments. See inline below.
> 
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Seems to me the v4 & v6 options can be simplied to remove length_2 as the
>> option length can just be 1 + ((# of addresses) * (address size, ie 4 or
>> 16)).
> 
> How to handle the situation that type-1 has two v4 addresses and
> type-2 has 1 v4 address.
> 
> And even only one address is contained, how to differentiate the 4 v4
> address to 1 v6 address?
> 
>> 
>> Or is the intent that if more types are defined, that the data might be:
>> type-1, length-1-2, address list for type[, type-2, length-2-2, address list
>> for type, [...]]?
>> 
>> We should also explore whether type field is needed; why wouldn't a new set
>> of options be defined for a future type? This document is titled ANQP so
>> what other types might there be and would they still be ANQP?
> 
> We consider this because the IEEE/WFA people have defined many
> entities that will need to advertise their address. ANQP is one
> example in IEEE 802.11-2012, and RLQP is coming in future specs.
> 
>> 
>> - Berne
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg