How, exactly, would specifying the order make any difference to an
implementation in terms of:
* code size and complexity
* processing time
* interoperability
Seems to me such a requirement would reduce interoperability with
existing implementations.
- Ralph
On Jun 23, 2010, at 1:58 PM 6/23/10, Richard Kelsey wrote:
From: Zach Shelby <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:51:32 +0300
I have a proposal to make ND message processing simpler. RFC4861 and
6lowpan-nd-10 don't specify any specific order in which options are
to
be included, making parsing more complex. We could simplify things by
specifying the order options in the NS, NA, RS, RA messages MUST be
carried.
If nothing else, specifying the order is likely to
reduce interoperation problems. Requiring that they
be in order of increasing Type would be simplest.
Seems like a good idea.
-Richard Kelsey
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
