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

I agree with Paul, here.  The current diagram is consistent
in format with the earlier RFCs Paul cites.

- Ralph

At 10:17 AM 4/28/2003 -0400, Paul Duffy wrote:
>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

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