Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-pktc-kerb-tckt-01.txt
Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Tue, 29 April 2003 14:36 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24525 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:36:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3TEfSn17438 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:41:28 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3TEfS817435 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:41:28 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24470 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:35:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19AWFB-0004cC-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:38:05 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19AWFA-0004c6-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:38:04 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3TEaL816135; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:36:21 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3TEW2815660 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:32:02 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23452 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:26:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19AW64-0004Jp-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:28:40 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19AW63-0004Jb-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:28:39 -0400
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h3TESdHo022105; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:28:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (sjc-vpn4-514.cisco.com [10.21.82.2]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA13846; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:28:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030429083118.0404fd20@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:34:01 -0400
To: Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com>
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-pktc-kerb-tckt-01.txt
Cc: Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com>, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030428100250.0254a608@funnel.cisco.com>
References: <200304281055.05202.budm@weird-solutions.com> <200304231936.h3NJaeDN014292@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> <200304231936.h3NJaeDN014292@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
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
- [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-pktc-kerb-tckt-01.txt Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-pktc-kerb-tckt-01.txt Paul Duffy
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-pktc-kerb-tckt-01.txt Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-pktc-kerb-tckt-01.txt Paul Duffy
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-pktc-kerb-tckt-01.txt Bud Millwood
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-pktc-kerb-tckt-01.txt Paul Duffy
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-pktc-kerb-tckt-01.txt Bud Millwood
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-pktc-kerb-tckt-01.txt Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-pktc-kerb-tckt-01.txt Christopher Zydel