Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] topic 4c: Common Header

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 22:24:16 -0700

Jamal,

-----Original Message-----
From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> On the content of the message: tcpdump should be able to decode based
> on the header if i am not mistaken. But we havent discussed the layout
> of the message content closely since last time. 
> [HK] The basic idea is the same, Common header followed by TLVs. I'll
> start defining the ones needed for the different protocol messages.

If you put this together please reference the discussion we already had
back when. This should would save time.

[HK] Sure, will do when I am writing this section.

> The problem is i am not sure if it would be worth to say flags x only
> apply to messages of type y. I am indifferent.
> 
> [HK] So is it fine with you if we define these Flags only as part of
the
> Config message rather than the Common header ? It seems like you're
> saying yes, but I would like to confirm.
> 

If you are asking this so you can get rid of the flags from the common
header, then i would say i dont wanna take that risk. I have a feeling i
misunderstood your intention.

[HK] Yes, that is what I was asking. But if you think this is a risk, we
can define it in 2 places (Config message & header) in the initial draft
and remove it from the common header once we review the draft after May
20th and you are satisfied with the text. Is that fine ?

Thanks again,
Hormuzd

_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 04 May 2004 08:40:39 -0400

> 20th and you are satisfied with the text. Is that fine ?

Sure, lets revisit when the text is in place.

cheers,
jamal