Re: [manet] DLEP-17: duplicate functions - Options & extensions negotiations

[Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> I commented (and so far I've had one comment on one detail I noted, nothing else) on that the draft makes reference to an extensions register, and then really doesn't specify it.

Maybe it should be something like an "extension id" registry?

> I think part of this issue is that what an extension is needs more specification.
>
> Is an extension defined completely by a list of new messages and/or data items that it consists of?

Not necessarily.

> If no, what else? (Yes of course a new message requires new processing, but is that fully defined by the message type?)

We don't know... that is why it is an extension... to add protocol
functionality we don't know yet.

> If yes, why not drop the extensions register, and just list the messages and data items directly? OK, then there's an issue of what needs listing? And then you end up at Lou's comment, just list everything you are using. (Which needs to interact correctly with indicating default values.)
>
> This does depend on the yes/no question above - and I think that regardless, the draft needs to be clearer on what an extension is to allow it to be answered.
>
> There might be an issue with listing lots of items. Except you need to do this anyway for default values if I understand correctly.

Henning Rogge