[Manet-dt] Should the I-bit be included in the common format?
Ian Chakeres <ian.chakeres@gmail.com> Sat, 21 January 2006 21:30 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
id 1F0QJF-0003Kf-DB; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:30:09 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F0QJD-0003KA-3W
for manet-dt@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:30:07 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1])
by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26890
for <manet-dt@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:28:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.205])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F0QS9-0004jq-73
for manet-dt@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:39:22 -0500
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id o37so804799nzf
for <manet-dt@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:30:00 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:content-type:to:from:subject:date:x-mailer;
b=Txei+Gt2lxxFuNRdIf9mpqiusopz3uJ/ikKuVBYaROjl9zA8uUknQ5l0FiPVV2mDrO3BmQ7Bak7lH0brUE0CO3mdbSPuF+Al0IYtxDgp1os4K/rWpqfM7VwbotYMlGjudW0nC/rT4KsZyNK7BLIxYvyPJ5R04JYdeyRD0a1Kxs4=
Received: by 10.65.176.16 with SMTP id d16mr749428qbp;
Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:30:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?192.168.0.135? ( [216.160.103.67])
by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id q13sm1895853qbq.2006.01.21.13.29.59;
Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:30:00 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <C9FC5126-4E68-4573-B80D-39657CA188DB@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
To: manet-dt@ietf.org
From: Ian Chakeres <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:29:46 -0800
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2)
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Manet-dt] Should the I-bit be included in the common format?
X-BeenThere: manet-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: MANET Design Team <manet-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>,
<mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/manet-dt>
List-Post: <mailto:manet-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>,
<mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org
In DYMO we have an ignored-bit. When a message is forwarded but the message type is unknown, then the ignored-bit is set. Are there cases when a node would forward a msg-type or tlv-type that it did not understand AND it is important for nodes that later process that message/tlv to know the that msg-type or tlv-type was not processed? Do you think we should build similar functionality into the common packet format? Ian _______________________________________________ Manet-dt mailing list Manet-dt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt
- [Manet-dt] Should the I-bit be included in the co… Ian Chakeres