On 10 Oct 2014, at 07:13, Tom Henderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Rene Hummen wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> I am not sure if we there was an answer to this question before. Why >> don’t we simply use the four lower-order bits in the HIT_SUITE_LIST >> ID field to convey the HIT Suites ID? That would definitely make the >> mapping between HIT Suites IDs and OGA IDs much clearer as the 4-bit >> and the 8-bit values would be the same. Moreover, I thought we would >> skip the part about using larger HIT suite IDs _in the main protocol >> specification_. I like your added text in the IANA consideration >> though. > > I agree with your comment that alignment with lower-order bits in the > 8-bit fields would be clearer. However, I suppose it was done the way > it currently reads to facilitate the expansion; I don't remember the > history of that particular design choice.
When using the four lower-order bits instead of the higher-order bits, we could simply define HIP Suite IDs > 16 to be reserved for future use. This would similarly facilitate the desired expansion, doesn’t it? René -- Dipl.-Inform. Rene Hummen, Ph.D. Student Chair of Communication and Distributed Systems RWTH Aachen University, Germany tel: +49 241 80 21426 web: http://www.comsys.rwth-aachen.de/team/rene-hummen/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
