Re: [Manet-dt] Packet Format Document - index start/stop for messagetlvs
Ian Chakeres <ian.chakeres@gmail.com> Sat, 21 January 2006 21:34 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 1F0QNd-0004pl-PL; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:34:41 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F0QNc-0004on-5g
for manet-dt@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:34:40 -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 QAA27141
for <manet-dt@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:33:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.207])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F0QWc-0004rc-A9
for manet-dt@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:43:59 -0500
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i14so673285wra
for <manet-dt@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:34:38 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=KAvHDQQpdk9kRsAn7SnZ3nuLo0499vD8aR5oNLmkTbbGmOC3KPuxA9wnANgJ8AzEM0PY8Q2kqRz04GEvSVta2j/Q7iPF3aPXDiG40vYvwpEmnqasL6jjBS+5SbULp0h0x4R8Q5p+LLeKh2JAv0dRpvT48H33IgOGOeL1Wi/SaA0=
Received: by 10.54.151.17 with SMTP id y17mr5615627wrd;
Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.54.104.4 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <374005f30601211334r44dee4cfn94190eea1e2cb10f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:34:37 -0800
From: Ian Chakeres <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>
To: Luke Klein-Berndt <kleinb@nist.gov>
Subject: Re: [Manet-dt] Packet Format Document - index start/stop for
messagetlvs
In-Reply-To: <017201c61c76$9f1fae10$26440681@campus.nist.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <374005f30512140747j26df382ai23865eea9a905a92@mail.gmail.com>
<017201c61c76$9f1fae10$26440681@campus.nist.gov>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: manet-dt@ietf.org
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
Luke and I feel that msg-tlv should not have index start/stop, since they are wasted bits. Does anyone else have a opinion about whether these fields should/shouldn't be included in msg-tlv? Or an indication of how these fields could be useful to msg-tlv? Ian On 1/18/06, Luke Klein-Berndt <kleinb@nist.gov> wrote: > I am not sure if this was answered offline, but I think this could be an > interesting question. 2 bytes per TLV would defiantly add up pretty > quickly... but if you are using some sort of static pointer to different > fields, you are going to want as few variances as possible. > > If they are required to be there to allow for common parsing, perhaps we can > use them for other purposes for message related TLVs. Might even allow for > zero length values fields if you can cram everything into those 16 bits. > > Luke Klein-Berndt > NIST OLES > 301-975-8021 > > -----Original Message----- > From: manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Ian Chakeres > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:47 AM > To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > Cc: manet-dt@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Manet-dt] Packet Format Document - index start/stop for > messagetlvs > > Comments inline. > > <snip> > > > >I noticed the index-start and index-stop are always there even for > > >single index tlvs. For msg-tlvs these aren't really needed. What was > > >the motivation of always including these two fields? > > > > Common parsing logic. > > I think we should discuss whether to include the start/stop for > message tlv. I'm not sure it is worth the 2 byte overhead for each > message-tlv. I'd like to discuss it. I don't think it would impact > the parser logic very much either way. > > Are you open to discussing it or do you feel strongly that the fields > should remain for message-tlvs? > > Ian > > _______________________________________________ > Manet-dt mailing list > Manet-dt@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt > > > > _______________________________________________ Manet-dt mailing list Manet-dt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt
- Re: [Manet-dt] Packet Format Document - index sta… Ian Chakeres
- RE: [Manet-dt] Packet Format Document - index sta… Luke Klein-Berndt
- Re: [Manet-dt] Packet Format Document - index sta… Ian Chakeres