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

["Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[e-mail]>]

I think it's worth just thinking about this. Can you suggest a plausible example where you need more information than just new message and data item types? It can be an alien space bats example ;)

(Of course there's more needed implicitly - such as what to do with a new message type. But the required information can be carried by just the new message type number.)


-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Rogge [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 10 December 2015 11:25
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: Lou Berger; [e-mail]; MANET IETF
Subject: Re: [manet] DLEP-17: duplicate functions - Options & extensions negotiations

----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------

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
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************