[mif] Small nit on route option draft
Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 14 November 2011 01:13 UTC
Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 933C321F8573 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:13:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EbnIU49FfpQ9 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:13:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com (exprod7og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD2A121F856F for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:13:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTsBrIEb1Nrm2a83lZFJMy85O2RaE2GQ+@postini.com; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:13:19 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E7851B82B3 for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:13:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37CDA190052 for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:13:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:13:04 -0800
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Small nit on route option draft
Thread-Index: Acyiao8QD5vjbXm9TE+xl6KwP+5RYg==
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:13:03 +0000
Message-ID: <EB74BFAE-C81B-4B5A-B8CF-3A3DC7554475@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <91D41A8D7846444B8B02D42F62CC9F26@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [mif] Small nit on route option draft
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:13:20 -0000
I would like to ask that you reverse the prefix length and metric fields in the option. The reason for this is that the prefix length and prefix look like they are going to become a common encoding (they are also used in a proposed source address configuration option). They are essentially a single value, expressed as two fields. I have asked the source address draft authors to group the prefix length and prefix together; I think it makes sense to do the same thing here. This will speed adoption of both drafts, I think. In order for this to be useful, of course, it would be necessary for you to adopt the variable length format for the prefix that is used in that draft. The draft is called draft-ietf-6man-address-select-opt-01. I do apologize for interjecting this so late in the process, but I think it's a substantial win to use the same format for the same data across different options.
- [mif] Small nit on route option draft Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Small nit on route option draft Tomek Mrugalski
- Re: [mif] Small nit on route option draft Ted Lemon
- [mif] Fwd: Small nit on route option draft Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Small nit on route option draft Ted Lemon